9089 réponses à ce sujet

[His Name was HYR!!]

TJBartlemus wrote...

Synthsis - Forces everyone to become part synthetic and organic. (It's been done before but failed. - Catalyst)

There's a first time for everything. If people just quit after one or even repeated failure, so many great accomplishments would never have been.

Husks gain sentience and are doomed to a tortured existence

People live through very real-life horrors to their bodies... disease, mutation, what have you. Everyone has to make the most of the cards they've been dealt. That's just the way it is. If husks can't bear living, they can go ahead and take their own life. You can't assume to mercy-kill all of them (Destroy), keep their free-will inhibited (Control), or leave them to the Reapers' mercy forever (Refuse) and think it's better than freeing them completely.

Organics are now what they were fighting. (Reapers, combinations of synthtic and organic)

Reapers and synthesized organics are completely different. Out with those straws.

This is the only choice that changes the way things are. And when things are changed dramatically in the past has generally back fired.

Key word: generally. Making generalizations is a pretty sure way not to see the big picture, or even get your facts right.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 09 juillet 2012 - 02:21 .

[Shaigunjoe]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Pacifien wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Demanding the end does not sound like preserving the essence of the individuals.

I think when they wrote Mass Effect 1, the writers probably only had a vague idea of what the Reapers could have been and they only really started to flesh it out during Mass Effect 2 when they revealed that it was organics that actually formed the building material for the Reapers. Then Harbinger starts saying the Reapers are Shepard's salvation through destruction, so whatever. Sovereign's speech was cool and all, but I wouldn't use his words as evidence for the Reaper's true purpose.

I'm not responding to the rest of this post because I don't believe that Synthesis is a form of mind control that eliminated everyone's free will. Technological singularity? Yes. Shoddy biology science? Yes to that, too. Wouldn't be the first time I saw that in a science fiction game... wouldn't be the first time I saw that in the Mass Effect games either.

Along the same lines, the role of the synthetics was never to be hostile. After the dark energy script leaked the ending was changed. Suddenly the plot changed into the inevitability of the synthetics threat, eventough no proof exists for that.

If you do not wish to repond to the rest of that post then why mention what you believe anyway? Should I not respond to that? And so on.

It'd be cool if you could link the leaked script.  It seems that everyone who has read it has said it was pretty much the same as what we got and no dark energy mentioned, but if there is a leaked dark energy script I would like to read it.

[Ieldra]

Link sent. There was never a dark energy plot in any of the leaked scripts. Bioware said that this was abandoned early, and from the only evidence we have - the Haestrom mission - it was abandoned somewhen during the development of ME2. While Karpyshyn also left the ME team somewhen during the development of ME2, there is no necessary connection between the two.

Anyway, it isn't ME1 and ME2 which is the storytelling slap-in-the-face for the organics/synthetics plot. It's EDI's development in ME3 and the peaceful solution of the quarian/geth conflict. There also isn't a *logical* inconsistency - those examples do not necessarily prevent the Catalyst's extinction scenario from coming true in a longer timeframe - but it makes for a very awkward WTF situation. A storytelling failure.

[Ieldra]

detbasketball13 wrote...
The Catalyst and the Reapers Approve your decision

Of course they do. It's an "everyone wins" scenario:

*Organics win by gaining the ability to seamlessly integrate technology
*Synthetics win by gaining full understanding of organics.
*The Catalyst wins because its purpose - to engender peace between organics and synthetics - will be fulfilled.
*The Reapers win by being freed from the Catalyst's control.
*The civilization of the galaxy wins by acquiring the knowledge of the past cycles and having the Reapers help with rebuilding.

So....why is that bad again?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 juillet 2012 - 08:26 .

[lillitheris]

DrZann wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
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 would be repeating myself.

Indulge me, as I do not recall that.

lillitheris wrote...
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.

They are called moral rules for a reason.

No, actually they are not called ‘moral rules’. They can be morality-based, and usually are, but not necessarily. In any case, they need not be based on the morality of the person enacting them. And even if they were, you should still explain where they come from.

Please don’t try to handwave this…you said that deontologically, Refuse makes sense. This means that there is some ruleset, or some source of duty, which explains why this is the case. What is it? Where does it come from?

Shepard is a soldier, and has been given orders to stop the Reapers. The most obvious duty is to do so.

So, you’d need to give some kind of a reason as to why the exact opposite of that is, in your view, the better option.

If you can’t come up with an explanation, can’t you just admit it?

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

So....why is that bad again?

Because none of it requires fundamentally altering laws of nature.

[Ieldra]

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
And this is the other side of the coin. The reapers do not preserve anything for the good of the organics.[/quote]
They do, for the Catalyst's value of "good". The goal is to preserve organic and synthetic life *as such*, single species are preserved in the best way the Catalyst can think of without compromising its goal. Of course we can't agree with that purpose, but that doesn't change what the Reapers are.[/quote]
The brat's value of good is not important when it is using cyclical genocide to reproduce reapers by using its horrific "ascension through destruction" method. The horrors inflicted upon the reapers' victims are questionable and the "end justifies the means" does not apply to victims, especially given the sheer number of genocides. No matter how hard you try.[/quote]
I am not trying to justify anything. The Catalyst's actions just are. We cannot agree with them but I can also place no absolute moral value on them because the Catalyst is amoral. I wonder why it is so impossible for you to accept that the Catalyst has a completely non-human value system and as such cannot necessarily be judged by human morals. I don't need moral condemnation to stop the Reapers. It's enough that I want galactic civilization to survive.

[quote]Also, the reapers do not "preserve" life. They kill to reproduce and to stay on top of the food chain.[/quote]
We have three independent sources who claim the opposite, as well as a great deal of plausible speculation:
(1) Legion: A Reaper is "uploaded and conjoined minds". He also explicitly confirms that Reapers are many minds when Shepard asks. This also implies that individual minds can still be perceived if you mentally contact a Reaper.
(2) EDI. A Reaper preserves the "essence" of a species.
(3) The Catalyst itself.
If the Reapers just needed genetic material, they could have that without all the hassle of that complicated harvesting process: take samples and clone the stuff, then bomb the worlds from orbit. Why do they need complete individuals? I can only think of one explanation: they need their minds. There is evidence that those are preserved in some way (see Legion). It's pretty straightforward logic, actually, which doesn't get invalidated by mere assumptions to the contrary. BTW, this is not after-the-fact rationalization. I have said exactly that in debates about the end of ME2 two years ago. The Catalyst has only confirmed it.

[quote]The brat and its boys maintain that top by making sure that the organics and synthetics never pass that top. Synthesis fans also paint a situation in which the brat and the boys do good work when they are interfering with the civilizatons without their victims' consent. The brat is never asked, yet it keeps violating the right of self-determination by any means possible, from intrigue to cyclical genocide.[/quote]
This is just plain bullsh*t. I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm just absolving the Reapers from responsibility to some degree.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
There is no reason to assume that they themselves are indoctrinated.[/quote]
I gave a rather plausible reason in the post you answered. See above.[/quote]
No, you did not. You just gave a rationalization of how you believe the brat's control over the reapers works. I have a more simple one in the reapers' case: Befehl ist Befehl. The reapers' in their infinite wisdom should have known how that works and yet, they did not rise against the brat.[/quote]
(1) There is evidence from three independent sources that the Reaperized species are somehow preserved in the Reapers. Thus, I feel justified in treating this as a fact.
(2) Given that this is so, it is implausible that all Reapers, almost without fail, have followed the Catalyst's commands to do to others what was done to them without being compelled. A free Reaper would have every reason to rebel against its creator, and with no evidence for social pressure to conform among the Reapers, no reason at all not to be able to. Unless there is some kind of indoctriation at work.

[quote]You see, with all their superior intelligence they were not able to figure out that what they did was wrong. Any sane organism with a bit of empathy would not be able to live with itself.[/quote]
This is a baseless generalization.

[quote]The Illusive Man and Saren were able to see figure that out in the end, even when indoctrinated, and understood the difference between right and wrong. They committed suicide as a result.[/quote]
They commited suicide not because of any moral consideration, but because they realized they were indoctrinated and death was preferable to living as indoctrinated slaves.

[quote]If synthesis preaches that synthetics would gain understanding of organics then that empathy would surface on the reapers too. Yet, it didn't happen. They were perfectly able to act as tools to rebuild the civilizations without blinking a green glowing eye. So even then, the reapers and everything within waved all that away.[/quote]
There are several things wrong with this: (1) we don't know how Synthesis changes the Reapers - are they treated as synthetics because their bodies are synthetics, or as organics because their minds have come from organics? If it's the former, btw, then the Reapers gain understanding which their constituent species already had. Did that survive in the Reapers, do they need any of those changes? No idea. (2) Not committing suicide in this situation is no evidence for lack of empathy.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
If the control over the reapers is considered indoctrination then so is the control in synthesis by Shepard's essence.[/quote]
Shepard's essence in Synthesis doesn't control anything, it just helps to make certain changes. Also, there is no link between the Catalyst's control of the Reapers and the way the Crucible changes life in Synthesis, thus no reason at all to assume they're similar.[/quote]
If there is no link between Shepard's "essence of who [he/she] is and what [he/she] is" and synthesis then it is of no use and Shepard dies a martyr without a reason.[/quote]
I'm sorry but there IS no link:
(1) The Catalyst indoctrinated the Reapers
(2) Shepards serves as a template for the Synthesis, which physically changes all organic life in the galaxy.
These are statements which are completely independent from each other. There is absolutely nothing to suggest any similarity.
As an aside, you might make that argument with regard to the understanding gained by synthetics through Synthesis, but the big difference is: they want that understanding.

[quote]If in synthesis the reapers were somehow liberated from their hypothetical enslavement then agony as a result of clarity of their actions in the past should have gotten the better of them. They are supposed to think like organics. Much like EDI's "I am alive." If it is true that those who were uploaded by "ascension through destruction" didn't lose their original minds then these would be in agony as well, because they now are free from the mental shackles after the "liberation" too. Unless of course the reapers' core AI kept indoctrinating them after synthesis. Their lives were destroyed and if it is true that their minds kept their essence they would be caught in a reaper's body for eternity anyway. And thus there would be no liberation possible for them. Forever prisoner and nowhere to go. Yet, no protests were heard after synthesis.[/quote]
If you want to claim that some Reapers committed suicide post-Synthesis because they can't live with what they did, that's perfectly possible. But you're making a pretty big assumption in claiming that this new form of life is, by itself, something bad. I won't claim the opposite, either, but I do insist we do not know and have no reason to assume anything either way.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
You can try to make the reapers appear as victims of the brat, but that doesn't make it true.[/quote]
It is plausible speculation. Neither you or me can look into the mind of a Reaper, so that's all we have. I do have evidence.[/quote]
What evidence? Speculation that glorifies borderline war crimes which you call plausible? Rationalizations that try to make evil look good? Also, see the paragraph above and in more detail below.[/quote]
All of the above? My theory fits the evidence. Besides, I am trying to explain, not justify. Unsurprisingly for someone whose perspective is so tainted by moral outrage that clear thinking has become impossible, the distinction appears to escape you.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...
The reapers themselves do not believe they are preserving such essence of the minds of the harvested races.[/quote]
I'll point to Pacifien's argument about Sovereign here. No need to repeat it.

[quote]Child: We harvest your bodies, your knowledge, your creations. We preserve it to be reborn in the form of a new reaper.

That doesn't sound like there was much left of anything they were like before. The races' minds and their knowledge are not the same thing.[/quote]
I concede that. But how do you explain Legion's statement, then? Apart from that, even if a Reaper is more like Control!Shepard, a new entity infused with the values of the original Shepard with no continuity of identity, my point would still stand: it is still implausible that thousands of free Reaper, each infused with the "essence" of a species, would without fail act as they do without being compelled.

[quote]You deliberately twist Shepard's essence extraction as used in synthesis into being used as a similar extraction method to upload the essence of harvested minds into reaper form.[/quote]
No, I did not. That was a claim made by you. I never said anything about the technicalities of the Synthesis process and Shepard's role in it in this thread.

Yet again, I am not justifying anything. I want to explain. You appear to be under the mistaken assumption that one follows inevitably from the other.

In fact, I think the cycle is something like a cosmic accident. There are no "bad guys". The Catalyst's creators created an AI to search for a means to create lasting peace between organics and synthetics, but made the mistake of not programming it with something  akin to Asimov's rules. So when the Catalyst couldn't find a solution, it decided to postpone the problem by initiating the cycle. It turned its creators into the first Reaper, but since the "essence" (whatever that means) of that species was preserved, the Catalyst couldn't expect it to serve the cycle willingly. So it implemented some kind of indoctrination scheme, linking the Reapers' minds to itself, making itself smarter as a side benefit.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 09 juillet 2012 - 10:11 .

[Chashan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It is very interesting how different the scene plays out if you choose the Paragon option. Which I never do here. Do you know why? Because unfailingly,"make us understand!" represents my attitude to the whole ME trilogy. I want to win, but before I win, I want to know. That's something all my Shepards have in common.

Here's the version I usually get:



As you can see, the whole exchange is completely different. The Reaper even attempts a shorthand explanation of the cycle, even though without the Catalyst's explanations, we can't understand it, and in hindsight, it comes across as spouting the Catalyst's party line in an altogether eerie way which suggests something like indoctrination. Shepard attempts to prove it wrong. The game adapts Shepard's character and the Reaper's answers to the spirit of the option you choose. So....in your game your version might be true, but in my game, my version is true. I think that's why the ending dialogue with the Catalyst is so contradictory. It must be adaptable to both viewpoints.

So, you may choose to interpret that silent death your way, but it's definitely not canon. The world just shifts according to Shepard's viewpoint as selected by you. Whatever viewpoint you adopt here is the canon of your game only.

Not getting into a canon-debate, but I am glad you can acknowledge my point.

I took a similar approach in ME2 at least as far as information of Reapers was concerned, although it was more of an approach of fighting 'fire with fire', so to speak. I chose to destroy the Collector base at the end, however, upon recommendation of my squad.

To be frank, by the time I hit Rannoch, I do not see a single reason to unearth the Reapers' motivation anymore; with the horror they wrought and are still continuing with at that point, there is just no argument that could redeem them going forward, which is also why I prefer to blow the Destroyer to smithereens.

Having said that, the thought that the magic buttons could be a way of "salvation" for the Reapers actually has some appeal...and "salvation through destruction" being indirectly approved by one of the Reapers' number within the game works fine in my book.

[Xandurpein]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Given that this is so, it is implausible that all Reapers, almost without fail, have followed the Catalyst's commands to do to others what was done to them without being compelled. A free Reaper would have every reason to rebel against its creator, and with no evidence for social pressure to conform among the Reapers, no reason at all not to be able to. Unless there is some kind of indoctriation at work.

First of all, kudos to being one of the few proponents of Synthesis that openly acknowledges the moral problems of forcing it on the Galaxy and being badly written into the story. The whole indoctrination thing is really something that worries me about Synthesis. I always believed that the Reaper indoctrination was more or less a by-product of the technology that creates the Reaper hive-minds. What if Synthesis means that every being in the Galaxy becomes indoctrinated? Just the possibility is scary.

One theme we see recurring in Mass Effect, and which I wish they had touched more upon in Mass Effect 3 is that of hive minds vs individualism. Hive minds in Mass Effect are usually presented as capable of amazing feats, but also fragile because of their uniformity. The whole Geth consciousness can be subverted by a computer virus, the Rachni are very vulnerable to Reaper indoctrination. Legion is unique among the Geth because he's cut off from the Geth consciousness and can develop his own mind.

I'm not saying Synthesis has to be like that, but I wonder how a human mind can retain it's identity and freedom if it can touch the mind of a Reaper. Would any of us know if we were indoctrinated?

Modifié par Xandurpein, 09 juillet 2012 - 11:12 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The Illusive Man and Saren were able to see figure that out in the end, even when indoctrinated, and understood the difference between right and wrong. They committed suicide as a result.

They commited suicide not because of any moral consideration, but because they realized they were indoctrinated and death was preferable to living as indoctrinated slaves.

This is completely false, at least in case of Saren: .

He realizes he’s indoctrinated and does the only thing he can to stop himself from causing more harm. That’s most certainly a moral consideration.

But at least you gave me a reason to see Saren’s explanation of Synthesis again: “The relationship is symbiotic, intertwined…strength of both, weakness of neither…vision of the future…evolution of all organic life.” Curiously, he also seems to think it’s a pretty cool existence with all kinds of possibilities…

[Vigilant111]

@Ieldra2:

1. Yes, it is pointless arguing about morals regarding reapers' actions, but how can synthesis be a moral option to life is ANOTHER question, so far I have not got any satisfying answer from you about the morality pertaining to the implementation of synthesis, my point is, morals are still relevant to Shepard, because he / she is not the Catalyst or the reapers (and now you will resort to saying all the options are immoral)

2. Being trapped inside a reaper body without being able to enjoy the life prior to death is abhorrent. There are other ways to preserve things, I think the reapers should have just preserve living culture like Liara's time capsule or Javik's USB, and let the synthetics wipe out their creators, in that way, the reapers will be freed of any blame, well, apart from the fact that they did not stop synthetics from wiping out organics. So I think the reapers have OTHER motives. (and now you will say the reapers are stoic warriors that took the blame while keeping galactic peace). The root of the problem will always be there, organics like the Quarians made a huge mistake, ignored the ethics relating to AI creation, and they paid for it, one could even say the Geth is perfectly justified to kill them off, I will say it again, people create AIs often for selfish reasons, that is why the council placed strict protocol regarding AIs, organics should not create life that they are not gonna respect later, can't control it, then don't create it

So the reapers "preserve", what good does it do? the people have been killed and died and converted into something that is no longer organic. It is better for the reapers to preserve the essence of life in societies' cultures, not traces of "life", cos organics are just organics, they are essentially the same, right? The reapers should preserve the ethos to show variaty of life, the "life" preserved in the reapers has already changed in form and also being confined in a single place and placed in a dangerous position (harbingers are weapons right? and we killed at least two, so effectively all of us has committed genocide, in other words, the reapers really don't care about organics "preserved", otherwise they would store this "life" in a safe instead), and is stimulated by objects that are not from their original home worlds, the concept of death is lost, and death is part of life

Modifié par Vigilant111, 09 juillet 2012 - 01:26 .

[Xilizhra]

But at least you gave me a reason to see Saren’s explanation of Synthesis again: “The relationship is symbiotic, intertwined…strength of both, weakness of neither…vision of the future…evolution of all organic life.” Curiously, he also seems to think it’s a pretty cool existence with all kinds of possibilities…

He was right, but for the wrong reasons. His intentions were good, but like TIM, he was on the wrong road and would never get anywhere with his plan because he was already indoctrinated.

[Xandurpein]

Vigilant111 wrote...

So the reapers "preserve", what good does it do? the people have been killed and died and converted into something that is no longer organic. It is better for the reapers to preserve the essence of life in societies' cultures, not traces of "life", cos organics are just organics, they are essentially the same, right? The reapers should preserve the ethos to show variaty of life, the "life" preserved in the reapers has already changed in form and also being confined in a single place and placed in a dangerous position (harbingers are weapons right? and we killed at least two, so effectively all of us has committed genocide, in other words, the reapers really don't care about organics "preserved", otherwise they would store this "life" in a safe instead), and is stimulated by objects that are not from their original home worlds, the concept of death is lost, and death is part of life

Or to put it like this; were the Collector's mass murderers when they turned hundreds of thousands of humans into gray goo to build the human reaper or where they merely peresrving them, and it was it Shepard that commited mass murder when he destroyd the human reaper larvae at the end of Mass Effect 2? Personally, I blame the Collectors...

Modifié par Xandurpein, 09 juillet 2012 - 01:03 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Link sent. There was never a dark energy plot in any of the leaked scripts. Bioware said that this was abandoned early, and from the only evidence we have - the Haestrom mission - it was abandoned somewhen during the development of ME2. While Karpyshyn also left the ME team somewhen during the development of ME2, there is no necessary connection between the two.

Anyway, it isn't ME1 and ME2 which is the storytelling slap-in-the-face for the organics/synthetics plot. It's EDI's development in ME3 and the peaceful solution of the quarian/geth conflict. There also isn't a *logical* inconsistency - those examples do not necessarily prevent the Catalyst's extinction scenario from coming true in a longer timeframe - but it makes for a very awkward WTF situation. A storytelling failure.

Thanks,

Yea, some of the story stuff definitly seemed like there were some drops in communication at BW.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

DrZann wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
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 would be repeating myself.

Indulge me, as I do not recall that.

lillitheris wrote...
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.

They are called moral rules for a reason.

No, actually they are not called ‘moral rules’. They can be morality-based, and usually are, but not necessarily. In any case, they need not be based on the morality of the person enacting them. And even if they were, you should still explain where they come from.

Please don’t try to handwave this…you said that deontologically, Refuse makes sense. This means that there is some ruleset, or some source of duty, which explains why this is the case. What is it? Where does it come from?

Shepard is a soldier, and has been given orders to stop the Reapers. The most obvious duty is to do so.

So, you’d need to give some kind of a reason as to why the exact opposite of that is, in your view, the better option.

If you can’t come up with an explanation, can’t you just admit it?

Spectres are agents entrusted with extraordinary authority by the
Citadel Council, including the power of life and death over the
inhabitants of the galaxy. They form an elite group selected from a
number of different species, and their primary responsibility is to
preserve galactic stability by whatever means necessary. Though they are
generally  considered as being above the law and have complete
discretion as to the methods used to accomplish their mission, an
individual's status as a Spectre can be revoked by the Council in a case
of a gross misconduct.

That's the code Shepard is supposed to follow, it basically says he's allowed to do whatever he considers to be right.

[His Name was HYR!!]

nvm.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 09 juillet 2012 - 02:57 .

[lillitheris]

Xilizhra wrote...

But at least you gave me a reason to see Saren’s explanation of Synthesis again: “The relationship is symbiotic, intertwined…strength of both, weakness of neither…vision of the future…evolution of all organic life.” Curiously, he also seems to think it’s a pretty cool existence with all kinds of possibilities…

He was right, but for the wrong reasons. His intentions were good, but like TIM, he was on the wrong road and would never get anywhere with his plan because he was already indoctrinated.

Yes, but that’s only why he couldn’t be the disintegratee. Would his description of Synthesis — straight from Sovereign — have been that different just because of that?

[lillitheris]

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Please don’t try to handwave this…you said that deontologically, Refuse makes sense. This means that there is some ruleset, or some source of duty, which explains why this is the case. What is it? Where does it come from?

Shepard is a soldier, and has been given orders to stop the Reapers. The most obvious duty is to do so.

So, you’d need to give some kind of a reason as to why the exact opposite of that is, in your view, the better option.

If you can’t come up with an explanation, can’t you just admit it?

[Spectre stuff]

That's the code Shepard is supposed to follow, it basically says he's allowed to do whatever he considers to be right.

That’s not much of a code. That’s not to say you are incorrect*, just that there’s really no rule there. As such, it’s essentially a self-justifying code.

So, why does Shepard think this is the rule that should be followed?

If the philosophical underpinning becomes “because I felt like it”, I don’t really see much in the way of fruitful debate coming out of it. If your analysis is correct, this whole discussion would have been shorter if DrZann had just said “it’s the right choice because Shepard decided it was, for some reason, regardless of its consequences”, rather than try to apply a vacuous philosophical statement on top of it.

(That said, perhaps DrZann has a different explanation than what you proposed.)


* (Though in this case I do think the direct orders — after accepting reinstatement, mind — would be overriding.)

Modifié par lillitheris, 09 juillet 2012 - 03:11 .

[Xilizhra]

lillitheris wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

But at least you gave me a reason to see Saren’s explanation of Synthesis again: “The relationship is symbiotic, intertwined…strength of both, weakness of neither…vision of the future…evolution of all organic life.” Curiously, he also seems to think it’s a pretty cool existence with all kinds of possibilities…

He was right, but for the wrong reasons. His intentions were good, but like TIM, he was on the wrong road and would never get anywhere with his plan because he was already indoctrinated.

Yes, but that’s only why he couldn’t be the disintegratee. Would his description of Synthesis — straight from Sovereign — have been that different just because of that?

From its conversation on Virmire, Sovereign unapologetically mixes truth with lies. TIM was right too in that the Reapers could be controlled, but was completely wrong about the method, and that's all that the Reapers needed. Similar for Saren; he was right about Synthesis being the best possible future, but his methods were totally off and wouldn't accomplish that goal, and that's why he needed to be stopped.

[His Name was HYR!!]

lillitheris wrote...

Yes, but that’s only why he couldn’t be the disintegratee. Would his description of Synthesis — straight from Sovereign — have been that different just because of that?

Saren wasn't describing synthesis, he was describing an alliance between all organics and synthetics. "The relationship is symbiotic. Machine and flesh intertwined."

You know, Saren is noted several times to be charismatic and compelling. Being an eloquent speaker is usually a trait associated with those qualities. Someone who's eloquent might use colorful and symbolic speech rather than go into literalisms and otherwise straightforward/uncompelling speech all the damn time.

This is just in-game stuff. We're not even going into the fact that Bioware's writing has the subtle grace of an anvil, and if that synthesis were any type of theme they wanted to promote next to Saren, it would not be limited to one single line. Compare that to the Illusive Man who never shuts up about controlling the Reapers in ME3.

[Xilizhra]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Yes, but that’s only why he couldn’t be the disintegratee. Would his description of Synthesis — straight from Sovereign — have been that different just because of that?

Saren wasn't describing synthesis, he was describing an alliance between all organics and synthetics. "The relationship is symbiotic. Machine and flesh intertwined."

You know, Saren is noted several times to be charismatic and compelling. Being an eloquent speaker is usually a trait associated with those qualities. Someone who's eloquent might use colorful and symbolic speech rather than go into literalisms and otherwise straightforward/uncompelling speech all the damn time.

This is just in-game stuff. We're not even going into the fact that Bioware's writing has the subtle grace of an anvil, and if that synthesis were any type of theme they wanted to promote next to Saren, it would not be limited to one single line. Compare that to the Illusive Man who never shuts up about controlling the Reapers in ME3.

Also, I admit, this. I may be misinterpreting things because I actually wanted to see more Saren parallels in ME3 as building up to the Synthesis choice, but it never worked out as planned. So I could be wrong.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

Heeden wrote...

lillitheris wrote...
Please don’t try to handwave this…you said that deontologically, Refuse makes sense. This means that there is some ruleset, or some source of duty, which explains why this is the case. What is it? Where does it come from?

Shepard is a soldier, and has been given orders to stop the Reapers. The most obvious duty is to do so.

So, you’d need to give some kind of a reason as to why the exact opposite of that is, in your view, the better option.

If you can’t come up with an explanation, can’t you just admit it?

[Spectre stuff]

That's the code Shepard is supposed to follow, it basically says he's allowed to do whatever he considers to be right.

That’s not much of a code. That’s not to say you are incorrect*, just that there’s really no rule there. As such, it’s essentially a self-justifying code.

So, why does Shepard think this is the rule that should be followed?

If the philosophical underpinning becomes “because I felt like it”, I don’t really see much in the way of fruitful debate coming out of it. If your analysis is correct, this whole discussion would have been shorter if DrZann had just said “it’s the right choice because Shepard decided it was, for some reason, regardless of its consequences”, rather than try to apply a vacuous philosophical statement on top of it.

(That said, perhaps DrZann has a different explanation than what you proposed.)


* (Though in this case I do think the direct orders — after accepting reinstatement, mind — would be overriding.)

I think you misread the Spectre stuff - Shepard absolutely has to look at the consequences. If you like he's a deontological consequentialist.

[lillitheris]

Xilizhra wrote...

Similar for Saren; he was right about Synthesis being the best possible future, but his methods were totally off and wouldn't accomplish that goal, and that's why he needed to be stopped.

Sure, but that’s not exactly what I’m saying. I’m wondering how close Saren’s existence was to Synthesis — being that it’s what he describes it as being.

Or, to put a finer point on it, what we see of Saren shouldn’t exactly inspire confidence in Synthesis being a good thing. But this has been discussed before, I was just waxing nostalgic over the video.

[Xilizhra]

lillitheris wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Similar for Saren; he was right about Synthesis being the best possible future, but his methods were totally off and wouldn't accomplish that goal, and that's why he needed to be stopped.

Sure, but that’s not exactly what I’m saying. I’m wondering how close Saren’s existence was to Synthesis — being that it’s what he describes it as being.

Or, to put a finer point on it, what we see of Saren shouldn’t exactly inspire confidence in Synthesis being a good thing. But this has been discussed before, I was just waxing nostalgic over the video.

Not close at all. He just has Reaper implants grafted onto him so he can be turned into an avatar.

[Heeden]

lillitheris wrote...

Sure, but that’s not exactly what I’m saying. I’m wondering how close Saren’s existence was to Synthesis — being that it’s what he describes it as being.

Or, to put a finer point on it, what we see of Saren shouldn’t exactly inspire confidence in Synthesis being a good thing. But this has been discussed before, I was just waxing nostalgic over the video.

Saren wasn't Synthesisd, he was Indoctrinated. It's a different situation where the synthetic life-form forces control and begins replacing biological systems with technology.