9089 réponses à ce sujet

[DrZann]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Like I said. Soldier.

(If it was Stephen Hawking up there, I’d maybe trust his judgment. Maybe. But he’d be smart enough to not make the decision by himself.)

There was more text under that line...

their primary responsibility is to preserve galactic stability by whatever means necessary

Shepard's job is to make these sorts of decisions, as given to him by the Council who are generally accepted as the ruling body of the galaxy.

This is a good point.

[Enthalpy]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Apart from that, some writer at Bioware is sure fond of his finalities, infinities and inevitabilities. I take those with a very large grain of salt. In this specific case, taking this as unconditional would make the whole choice a mockery, so it can't meant unconditionally. I take "inevitable" to mean "inevitable given certain prevailing conditions or interventions". I think they used it here because they didn't want to use the exact phrasing of the leaked script: "A path you've already started down".

It's baffling to see so many people hung up on the Catalyst's usage of the word "inevitable." I just assumed right off the bat that it was saying: synthetic domination would be "inevitable" if no one did anything about it. Much like getting wet is inevitable in a rainstorm if one did not find an umbrella. It is poor writing though.

(And also baffled at the idea that because one is dry, it implies that there is in fact no rain, and throwing away the umbrella is perfectly fine. But this metaphor is getting derailed.)

[DrZann]

lillitheris wrote...
I’d have to drag out my philosophy books, but it sounds like you’re describing a particular deontological philosophy. The ten commandments, for example, are a deontological system. The basic idea is that you have a ruleset, and your actions are only moral if you follow those rules. The morality of the rules themselves is unimportant.

The Ten Commandments are absolutely not a Deontological system, they are not a philosophical system at all. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy...is not a moral rule. Although they would figure in Divine Command Theory. Also, the morality of the rules are absolutely important...that's the whole point.

lillitheris wrote...
So, you can certainly argue that there is a system like you describe, but you’d need to define where the ‘right thing’ is laid out since otherwise it’s impossible to say whether the act is consistent or not.

Which is where the "System" part comes in.

[SITHDUKE]

[quote]SpectreVeldt wrote...

Okay, I'm going to just break down your 'arguments' for you, Lillitheris, in addition to your actual interactions with everyone else.  You garner most people's attention, whether by random reply or repeated responses, and interaction with you leads to nowhere.  So, let's break out the popcorn!

Assumptions and Opinions stated as Fact

[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]Actual consequences are irrelevant.[/quote][quote]The body is irrelevant.[/quote][quote]Synthesis works somehow. The details are irrelevant.[/quote][quote]I’ve made two very clear points, one of which is that empiricism has nothing to do with the moral question (it happens after the question and is therefore irrelevant).[/quote][quote]Oh. Goddess. The epilogue is irrelevant.[/quote][quote]You are incapable of making an educated decision on its benefits ahead of time.[/quote][quote]I would be interested in the scientific aspect, but it doesn’t exist.[/quote][quote]Each of the other options have clearly stated effects. Synthesis doesn't.[/quote][quote]And I said that that (“do ends justify the means?”) is the wrong question, which it is.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
The details [concerning identity] thereof must be defined, yes[/quote]And yet . . . 
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
I don’t think [identity] needs redefinition.[/quote]And this last one is particularly amusing, considering you were concerned about a "new level of consciousness," which would probably figure a lot into one's identity.


[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
Control is the least worst act -- and certainly the most conservative one.[/quote]Also you assume that the most conservative choice is the best one.[/quote]…I did say that it was the most conservative one. Using that exact word.[/quote]And just noting that your last answer does not even remotely address Ieldra.  "Least worst" denotes "best," as Ieldra stated.  It's like you're lost.


This last one is funny:
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
I don’t really assume much…[/quote]

Ignoring or Deeming Everyone Else's Arguments as Irrelevant (Even, or especially, when it is relevant)

[quote]Ieldra2 wrote... (to lillitheris)
And you keep ignoring the new exposition and act as if nothing has changed from the pre-EC times.[/quote]
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]You’re welcome to ‘foster logical discussion’ about the other aspects of Synthesis. I don’t care about those[/quote][quote]I don’t know where you’re coming up with this ‘biochemical purity’ nonsense.[/quote][quote]I have no interest in your hypotheses about what Synthesis could perhaps be.[/quote][quote]Also, f— everything about themes. Life doesn’t have themes.[/quote][quote]Additionally, the whole idea is so utterly ridiculous that I do not draw any intellectual satisfaction inventing some fantasy explanation for it because I’m not solving an actual problem.[/quote][quote]But, again, I don’t care. You’ve convinced yourself that these particular unicorns are what you get. You’re welcome to that, I really have nothing further to add to this part of the discussion.[/quote][quote]I have no interest in arguing about what is and isn’t thematic.[/quote][quote]You’re welcome to talk about how themes might or might not apply. I’m not interested in that, either.[/quote][quote]If you do wish to address my points, do so. If you wish to address some other points that I’m not interested in, do that.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
I suggest to take the endings in the spirit they come across and not act like a Biblical literalist.[/quote]No. Just…no. That would be a completely pointless discussion. You’re welcome to it, but I have no interest.[/quote]  
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]SpectreVeldt wrote...
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
All I want is that you provide me a comprehensible framework of this new level of consciousness[/quote]You still have not defined our "level of consciousness" prior to the Synthesis solution. You need to know this (or at least educate yourself) before questioning the new level of consciousness.[/quote]No, I don’t.[/quote] 
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
Actual consequences ≠ predictions. (The problem with Synthesis is that you cannot make comprehensible predictions.) These are data known at the time of making the decision.[/quote]And yet I have provided precisely this in my own thread, in addition to this thread's OP.


[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]So, I look through the thread. Nowhere in there do you offer any explanation or anything that comes even close to it. There’s some speculation of what some of the possible effects could be [color=rgb(204, 255, 204)">[predictions].[/quote][quote]I have no interest in your hypotheses about what Synthesis could perhaps be ][once again, predictions][/color][/quote][quote]And, once again, you and whoever you're talking to are welcome to keep talking about what Synthesis might mean, and how it might work [prediction]. I am not interested in that.[/quote][/quote]All of these describe predictions.  You are simply content to ignore it, and everything else.


Continued Assumptions and Contradictions

You specify the importance of understanding the implications and consequences of Synthesis in order to make an educated decision:
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
How does it affect our thought processes?  How can it not affect minds if it's actually reconfiguring basic biology?  All you have for the real ends is conjecture. That’s fine in itself, and you may find pleasure in mapping those possibilities out in your theories…but it’s irresponsible to select such an option without a firm understanding of the implications.[/quote]
But then you go on to say:
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
Actual consequences are irrelevant.[/quote]
Going into this further...
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
I said actual consequences are irrelevant. For example, you can’t say that choosing Synthesis is morally right because you see that the actual consequences are good (in the epilogue, for some value of good). The actual consequences are not factors in the decision, because they have not happened yet.[/quote]
As opposed to what - fake consequences?

consequence [ˈkɒnsɪkwəns]
n
1. a result or effect of an action or condition.
2. a result or effect of some previous occurence.
3. a conclusion reached by reasoning.

Additionally, decisions are made based on potential consequences.  Nobody has precognition.  Why on earth would you suggest that the only way anyone can make a decision is if they could see the future?  Humans make decisions
all the time.  And consequences are a major aspect of that.  (See different dictionary definitions above.)

What you're saying makes absolute zero sense.  You're saying that consequences don't matter when we make a decision "because they have not happened yet," when that is the only type of consequence we deal with when making decisions.  If we're making a decision, we base it off what we think the negative or positive consequences will be.  When we talk of consequences that have already occurred, there is no decision to be made!
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]My problem is that  I do not believe the actual ends (the reality of the end result, and the effects that are needed to get to it) are described in a manner  that is comprehensible. That is, there is no logical path from here to the utopia*. This means that I cannot make an educated decision on its merits.[/quote][quote]And I said that that (“do ends justify the means?”) is the wrong question, which it is.[/quote][/quote]Haven't you been discussing the significance of the ends and whether or not we can make an educated decision?  You yourself have continuously stated that you are discussing the "morality" of the decision.

As was so aptly phrased:
[quote]SithDuke wrote...
You state, "it’s irresponsible to select such an option without a firm understanding of the implications."  But you also diminish the significance of conjecture based on an analytical process, through which we may actually gain a "firm understanding of the implications."

"Mapping those possibilities out" is how we further educate ourselves regarding the implications.  You are
telling everyone here that we need a "firm understanding of the implications," but we shouldn't even TRY to reach that understanding by any means.[/quote]
[quote]lillitheris wrote...
[quote]You say that you’re trying to better understand the ending (by which I assume you mean Synthesis in this case), or working toward it. That’s perfectly fine, you’re welcome to do that.[/quote][quote]You're welcome to 'foster logical discussion' about the other aspects of Synthesis.[/quote][quote]I specified that whatever other detail there may be to know about Synthesis is irrelevant.[/quote][/quote]You operate under the assumption that we cannot possibly understand the ending and/or make an informed decision, even challenging others to provide you with evidence, are presented with evidence to the contrary, and yet also state that such evidence and implications are "irrelevant," and therefore, we cannot possibly understand the ending and/or make an informed decision.  Horrible circular logic.

[quote]lillitheris wrote...
I want to deconstruct one thing. The choice. And every single one of you is dancing around it, whatever your excuse is.[/quote]We have all been, in different ways, trying to deconstruct choice, i.e., making a decision, which is made based on potential consequences--breaking down the implications surrounding the choice.  You've been ignoring every single person.


Utilization of Strawman Fallacy

Just going to name three because the vast majority of your posts are riddled with these:
[quote]SpectreVeldt wrote...
You took it upon yourself to provide me with my own arguments and ideas and then it was like watching someone argue with themself (post after post).[/quote][quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
And please stop telling me what I think. It's an extremely annoying habit of yours. [/quote][quote]DrZann wrote...
I never said anything about Robo-Shep being corrupted.[/quote]
[/quote]


This.

[Ieldra]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
The question is: will "natural" Synthesis still happen with a machine god policing the galaxy? Being ruled by a synthetic god emperor doesn't appear conducive to the kind of co-existence and integration Synthesis requires. 

I'm not sure I would describe Control as being ruled by a synthetic god emperor. All Shepard says is how he/she will protect the Galaxy (in Paragon atleast) We don't just how 'involved' Shepard is with the Galaxy now.

What I'm saying is that if Shepard completely stays out of the way (which is what I choose to believe about Control) then Synthesis could happen on its own. Not 'naturally' but somehow it could happen.

Control!Shep will have to prevent the "synthetics will destroy organics" part at least, until Synthesis is achieved. The results will depending on how he's going about it.

I'm not saying it isn't a plausible headcanon. I'm just giving reasons why I prefer to speed the process up.

[Fuzzfro]

I do like the synthesis ending but what I quite don't understand is what the Catalyst means by "we have tryed it before but they weren't ready" or something to that effect. What makes this cycle ready and why didn't it work last time but work this time? and does that mean the crucible has been used before to implement synthesis? or did the reapers and the catalyst attempt something like it?

I just need some clarification here because it is one of the few remaining issues I have with Synthesis.

[Ieldra]

Fuzzfro wrote...
I do like the synthesis ending but what I quite don't understand is what the Catalyst means by "we have tryed it before but they weren't ready" or something to that effect. What makes this cycle ready and why didn't it work last time but work this time? and does that mean the crucible has been used before to implement synthesis? or did the reapers and the catalyst attempt something like it?

I just need some clarification here because it is one of the few remaining issues I have with Synthesis.

I think it's rather clear: There is a "personality dissemination" required for Synthesis to be achieved, but the necessary sacrifice can't be forced. The Catalyst says they tried Synthesis before (presumably on a smaller scale but that's open for speculation) but apparently it failed because the "human sacrifice" was not willing, thus proving that organics were not ready for Synthesis. Shepard becomes the judge of whether organics are ready for Synthesis or not. By jumping into the beam, Shepard makes her opinion clear and is proven right by the epilogue.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juillet 2012 - 10:06 .

[Fuzzfro]

@Ieldra2
Thanks for the reply.
Also
I have seen many anti synthesis people having an issue with the continued existence of the reapers after synthesis, claiming that because no one seems to object to the reapers sticking around that the change presented in the organics has rapidly changed them into accepting the reapers and is somewhat similar to indoctrination, I would argue that the ending releases the reapers from the catalyst's controls and changes from the Synthesis ending gave organics a great understanding of the reapers and vice versa giving them both the abilities to work together.

What are your thoughts on this? and perhaps it should be placed in the common objectives section.

[lillitheris]

DrZann wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
I’d have to drag out my philosophy books, but it sounds like you’re describing a particular deontological philosophy. The ten commandments, for example, are a deontological system. The basic idea is that you have a ruleset, and your actions are only moral if you follow those rules. The morality of the rules themselves is unimportant.

The Ten Commandments are absolutely not a Deontological system, they are not a philosophical system at all. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy...is not a moral rule. Although they would figure in Divine Command Theory. Also, the morality of the rules are absolutely important...that's the whole point.

OK, the sources I am looking at (see below for two links) confirm that deontological ethics is duty-bound. If you disagree with this, please provide a citation.

To clarify, I’m not arguing whether deontological ethics considers consequences (it doesn’t). I’m arguing that you must actually provide the source of the duty to which Shepard is adhering if you wish to discuss the deontological aspect.

I contend that the morality of the rules is in fact unimportant…you have a set of rules, and the action is moral if and only if it adheres to those rules.

That is not to say that the morality of the rules is not something that should be examined; I am merely saying that their morality is unimportant in judging the morality of the action — which, again, is only measured by its adherence.


Wikipedia: Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek deon, "obligation, duty"; and -logia) is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules.[1] It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" or "rule" -based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty". … Although not all Deontologists are religious, some believe in The 'Divine Command Theory'. 'The Divine Command Theory' is a cluster of related theories that state that an action is right if God has decreed that it is right.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: For deontologists, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm. Such norms are to be simply obeyed by each moral agent; such norm-keepings are not to be maximized by each agent.

lillitheris wrote...
So, you can certainly argue that there is a system like you describe, but you’d need to define where the ‘right thing’ is laid out since otherwise it’s impossible to say whether the act is consistent or not.

Which is where the "System" part comes in.

You still need to define the system, or it’s a rather short debate. What and whence is the rule that Shepard is following?

Modifié par lillitheris, 07 juillet 2012 - 02:49 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Fuzzfro wrote...
I do like the synthesis ending but what I quite don't understand is what the Catalyst means by "we have tryed it before but they weren't ready" or something to that effect. What makes this cycle ready and why didn't it work last time but work this time? and does that mean the crucible has been used before to implement synthesis? or did the reapers and the catalyst attempt something like it?

I just need some clarification here because it is one of the few remaining issues I have with Synthesis.

I think it's rather clear: There is a "personality dissemination" required for Synthesis to be achieved, but the necessary sacrifice can't be forced. The Catalyst says they tried Synthesis before (presumably on a smaller scale but that's open for speculation) but apparently it failed because the "human sacrifice" was not willing, thus proving that organics were not ready for Synthesis. Shepard becomes the judge of whether organics are ready for Synthesis or not. By jumping into the beam, Shepard makes her opinion clear and is proven right by the epilogue.

It took millions of years to find somebody dumb or morally bankrupt enough to agree to do it.

[lillitheris]

SITHDUKE wrote...

This.

I’m unsurprised that you’d rather go for out-of-context and bizarrely combined quotes than answer the response I wrote to you.

[darkpassenger2342]

i subscribed to this topic.
i am definitely in support of synthesis.

Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 07 juillet 2012 - 02:50 .

[Ieldra]

Fuzzfro wrote...

@Ieldra2
Thanks for the reply.
Also I have seen many anti synthesis people having an issue with the continued existence of the reapers after synthesis, claiming that because no one seems to object to the reapers sticking around that the change presented in the organics has rapidly changed them into accepting the reapers and is somewhat similar to indoctrination, I would argue that the ending releases the reapers from the catalyst's controls and changes from the Synthesis ending gave organics a great understanding of the reapers and vice versa giving them both the abilities to work together.

What are your thoughts on this? and perhaps it should be placed in the common objectives section.

As I see it, the Reapers are avatars of civilizations, as much victims of the cycle as its servants. If there is any truth to the claim that the species of past cycles are somehow preserved in the Reapers - and we have good evidence from Legion in ME2 that it is true - then it is not plausible they would all serve the cycle without fail without being compelled. Thus, I think  the Catalyst has the Reapers under some kind of indoctrination-like mind control, subverting their will. If released, it is rather possible that some Reapers would remain hostile, but the majority would have reason to be grateful.

It only takes this piece of information - that the Reapers were enslaved - and people would be much more accepting of them, especially since they also help rebuild. I also like to mention that the ending paints a *generally* good future, which doesn't mean it's a *universally* good one. Of course there would be some resentment and even outright hate, but bad side effects aren't shown in any of the endings, so I'll go with the assumption that those problems don't mar the big picture much.

More details in these threads:

*On the nature of the Catalyst and the Reapers, and why Synthesis is an attractive choice by me. An exploration of the nature of the Reapers and their relationship to the Catalyst.
*The Truth: the Reapers want Shepard to succeedThe Truth: the Reapers want Shepard to succeed[/url] by JustinElenbaal, a fascinating hypothesis making the Reapers complicit in Shepard's success.

@darkpassenger:
Welcome. Things aren't quite as mad here as in the other Synthesis threads.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 juillet 2012 - 03:03 .

[YNation913]

Hopefully this rumored DLC will give us more insight into the redeeming qualities of Reapers.

[darkpassenger2342]

YNation913 wrote...

Hopefully this rumored DLC will give us more insight into the redeeming qualities of Reapers.

 good point and probably true, but you know whatever takes place will be twisted and interpreted 5000 different ways.
it will still come down to perspective, there will never be anything overly definitive because the controversy will keep people talkin about it.
basically, it will still be up to us to determine whether or not they are truly "evil"
the people that have their minds made up already won't change them no matter what they see, IMO.
that goes for all the viewpoints.

Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 07 juillet 2012 - 03:18 .

[darkpassenger2342]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Fuzzfro wrote...
I do like the synthesis ending but what I quite don't understand is what the Catalyst means by "we have tryed it before but they weren't ready" or something to that effect. What makes this cycle ready and why didn't it work last time but work this time? and does that mean the crucible has been used before to implement synthesis? or did the reapers and the catalyst attempt something like it?

I just need some clarification here because it is one of the few remaining issues I have with Synthesis.

I think it's rather clear: There is a "personality dissemination" required for Synthesis to be achieved, but the necessary sacrifice can't be forced. The Catalyst says they tried Synthesis before (presumably on a smaller scale but that's open for speculation) but apparently it failed because the "human sacrifice" was not willing, thus proving that organics were not ready for Synthesis. Shepard becomes the judge of whether organics are ready for Synthesis or not. By jumping into the beam, Shepard makes her opinion clear and is proven right by the epilogue.

i think a good example of "not being ready" is the protheans.. they could have achieved anything as a society, but instead they chose to enslave everyone. in fact, the only thing that kept them from ruling the entire galaxy was the reapers. if you take away the good willl of preserving plans, they arent all that different from the controlled reapers themselves. they didnt deserve synthesis. it appears they were not even asked. they only had their own advancement in mind, not the galaxy's. ( udina, illusive man similarities?)

Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 07 juillet 2012 - 03:23 .

[Shaigunjoe]

YNation913 wrote...

Hopefully this rumored DLC will give us more insight into the redeeming qualities of Reapers.

Yup, I'm really glad that the leviathan of dis will get its say.  Also I hope that some of the other planetary discriptions get dug up.

[Fuzzfro]

YNation913 wrote...

Hopefully this rumored DLC will give us more insight into the redeeming qualities of Reapers.

Yeah I really hope so too, most people are just chosing flat out control because they beleive the reapers are much more use dead, a DLC like this could change that up a little.

I would also like if that DLC incorporated the human-reaper plotline and gave it some relevance in one way or another, although it is unlikely.

[Ieldra]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

YNation913 wrote...
Hopefully this rumored DLC will give us more insight into the redeeming qualities of Reapers.

Yup, I'm really glad that the leviathan of dis will get its say.  Also I hope that some of the other planetary discriptions get dug up.

I'm looking forward to that DLC very much, but I also think clues - even specific information - about the nature of the Reapers were always in the games. Between Sovereign's "each of us is a nation", Harbinger's "WE are Harbinger", Legion's "Billions of organic minds, uploaded...." it was there for all to see right from the start, if people had cared to look behind the Cthulu-esque facade. On the other hand, Bioware shot themselves in the foot by making Legion appear so late in ME2 that most people didn't get his explanations and by making Javik DLC, who has a lot of interesting background information on the organic/synthetic thing.

What needs to be touched on in the DLC is how much "servants of the cycle" (Prothean VI) the Reapers are. Too bad we probably won't get to speak with this one.

[Shaigunjoe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

YNation913 wrote...
Hopefully this rumored DLC will give us more insight into the redeeming qualities of Reapers.

Yup, I'm really glad that the leviathan of dis will get its say.  Also I hope that some of the other planetary discriptions get dug up.

I'm looking forward to that DLC very much, but I also think clues - even specific information - about the nature of the Reapers were always in the games. Between Sovereign's "each of us is a nation", Harbinger's "WE are Harbinger", Legion's "Billions of organic minds, uploaded...." it was there for all to see right from the start, if people had cared to look behind the Cthulu-esque facade. On the other hand, Bioware shot themselves in the foot by making Legion appear so late in ME2 that most people didn't get his explanations and by making Javik DLC, who has a lot of interesting background information on the organic/synthetic thing.

What needs to be touched on in the DLC is how much "servants of the cycle" (Prothean VI) the Reapers are. Too bad we probably won't get to speak with this one.

Right, I just think that it would be cool to hear what a rogue reaper has to say (I guess that means one that isn't under the control of the catalyst)

[His Name was HYR!!]

Hey all. Just wanted to say that I'm going to begin writing an epilogue fanfic of my canon ME career, and naturally, this will take place in a post-synthesis galaxy.

This story won't, however, revolve around all-things-synthesis. It will play a role, but a relatively minor one. It will even somewhat reject the utopian-society that Bioware presented. The idea being: the galaxy is united and all have resolved to work together peacefully, but as always, there are some folks out there with other priorities and resolve to make trouble instead (never liked the idea that synthesis "makes us good" and that all conflict is gone).

I had the idea of creating a headcanon epilogue-ff after finishing my canon import in ME3 a second time, pre-Extended Cut. At the time, I was planning on it being more of an denouement than anything to a (rather unimaginative) self-insert FF I've already written, which ends abruptly since Shepard isn't there to finish it after landing on Earth. But with EC coming out sooner than expected, I put those plans on hold.

Post-EC, my ideas have naturally changed a bit. It will do what I originally intended - provide my SI-FF with a proper denouement to its story - in the first 3-4 chapters. After that, a new story will be taking place, and it will involve some old faces whose stories are NOT over yet. I then hope to provide those individual stories with some closure of their own when this story is finished.

I've finished the planning and it looks to be a pretty ambitious undertaking. Nonetheless, I'm excited to see how well I can flex my long-dormant creative muscles.

[Torrible]

I should have posted this here to begin with:

Shepard's journey is one that is thematically pointing towards Synthesis. In ME1, he was disgusted with the notion of Synthesis. "I'd rather die than live like that!" The Geth were definitely regarded as the enemy.

In ME2, he died and was 'reborn' with technology replacing some of his vital organs. Like it or not, he had become part synthetic. Met Legion and gained a nearly completely different notion of what the Geth (uncorrupted) truly are. He had become friends with a Geth.

In ME3, he guided EDI in her search for a moral identity. Even before the 'mad dash towards the beam', she credited him for being the one who made her feel truly alive. Met up with Legion who connected him to the Geth's virtual world. There, he saw how the Geth-Quarian conflict started. The experience planted the seeds of a desire to end all organic/synthetic conflicts. Soon after, he had achieved something no one else ever had; he united the Geth and Quarians once and for all.

[Xilizhra]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Hey all. Just wanted to say that I'm going to begin writing an epilogue fanfic of my canon ME career, and naturally, this will take place in a post-synthesis galaxy.

This story won't, however, revolve around all-things-synthesis. It will play a role, but a relatively minor one. It will even somewhat reject the utopian-society that Bioware presented. The idea being: the galaxy is united and all have resolved to work together peacefully, but as always, there are some folks out there with other priorities and resolve to make trouble instead (never liked the idea that synthesis "makes us good" and that all conflict is gone).

I had the idea of creating a headcanon epilogue-ff after finishing my canon import in ME3 a second time, pre-Extended Cut. At the time, I was planning on it being more of an denouement than anything to a (rather unimaginative) self-insert FF I've already written, which ends abruptly since Shepard isn't there to finish it after landing on Earth. But with EC coming out sooner than expected, I put those plans on hold.

Post-EC, my ideas have naturally changed a bit. It will do what I originally intended - provide my SI-FF with a proper denouement to its story - in the first 3-4 chapters. After that, a new story will be taking place, and it will involve some old faces whose stories are NOT over yet. I then hope to provide those individual stories with some closure of their own when this story is finished.

I've finished the planning and it looks to be a pretty ambitious undertaking. Nonetheless, I'm excited to see how well I can flex my long-dormant creative muscles.

I had a similar idea, but with Shepard somehow returned to life.. I'm not completely sure how it'd work yet, but I can see a few possibilities.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Xilizhra wrote...

I had a similar idea, but with Shepard somehow returned to life.. I'm not completely sure how it'd work yet, but I can see a few possibilities.

You know, I've mused with the idea of Shepard not dying in the first place. The beam, rather than disintegrating Shepard, takes a scan of him/her instead and sends out the uploaded info. Then, he/she just takes an emergency lifepod and gets the hell out of dodge.

As long as the Catalyst never says explicitly that Shepard will die by choosing it (can't remember his exact words), it could work. Otherwise, you can always retcon a small detail like that.

For my part, though, I like the story better with Shepard passing away.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 07 juillet 2012 - 07:50 .

[Xilizhra]

I think the Catalyst says that Shepard will be physically disseminated to serve as a power source for the beam. Or something. It doesn't make sense regardless. The problem is that Shepard's name does get stuck on the memorial wall...