9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Mobius-Silent]

Fandango9641 wrote...
My points could not be simpler:

1) No one has the moral authority to enjoin slavery, genocide or what basically amounts to space-eugenics.
 
2) It sucks that the game punishes those who reject Caspers horrific solutions.

It's really that simple. Understand now?

Also important point that many people keep ignoring since the E.C.
These are _not_ "The Catalyst's choices" They are the options available to you due to the construction of the Crucible. the Catalyst doesn't enable or participate in any of these save (arguably) to activate the lift-of-light.

The mindset of "The catalyst is doing this to me" leads to the expection that the rejection ending will provide catharsis (when it can't) the solution is to stop attributing the choices to the Catalyst, after that the rejection ending stops feeling like some kind of vague moral victory, when in actual fact it isn't.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 13 juillet 2012 - 06:55 .

[Taboo]

There are no moral victories. All of the choices could be defended as grey. It depends on what you or your Shepard believes.

My canon Shepard will always choose Destroy and he's a Paragon. You walk blindly into danger.

But others? One that is particularly stubborn may choose Refuse.

An optimist will choose Synthesis. You leap into the unknown.

And someone who believes the galaxy needs policing will choose Control. You grab the reigns of control.

Art.

Symbolism.

Et cetera.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 13 juillet 2012 - 06:40 .

[Mobius-Silent]

Taboo-XX wrote...
There are no moral victories. All of the choices could be defended as grey. It depends on what you or your Shepard believes.

I agree, as I wrote elsewhere on the subject:

Personally I think all the endings are crafted to appeal to different people precisely so that they'll defend them vociferously.Destroy: Ends justify the means, common-man victory. Military-minded people chose this, preferring to kill allies themselves to save the chosen others, rather than consider the alternatives.Control: Monotheism writ small/Monarchy writ large. Can one person be trusted to rule benevolently, can you? Will you give up the power after the work is done, when is the work ever "done"? People who believe that one trusted person can remain uncorrupted by power (for a while) choose this.Synthesis: Victory by changing the goalposts, massive potential failings but solves the problem at hand, violates everyone's bodily self-determination but less so that reaperizing them or scrubbing them from the galaxy. People who hope for something better even in the face of counter-evidence choose this.[/list]FinallyRejection: Not part of the initial design, added for those who were so appalled by the options presented they just wanted to scream "no". Chosen by people who were so appalled by the options presented they no longer cared about the characters or setting, or those who did still care but wanted to spite Bioware, or those looking for another option (who generally did not like what they then found)[/list]All are poorly thought out in the context of the narrative, but custom-designed to cause disagreement because each is aimed at different types of people, who will never agree.

[Mobius-Silent]

Taboo-XX wrote...
There are no moral victories. All of the choices could be defended as grey. It depends on what you or your Shepard believes.

I agree, as I wrote elsewhere on the subject:

Personally I think all the endings are crafted to appeal to different people precisely so that they'll defend them vociferously.

• Destroy: Ends justify the means, common-man victory. Military-minded people chose this, preferring to kill allies themselves to save the chosen others, rather than consider the alternatives.
• Control: Monotheism writ small/Monarchy writ large. Can one person be trusted to rule benevolently, can you? Will you give up the power after the work is done, when is the work ever "done"? People who believe that one trusted person can remain uncorrupted by power (for a while) choose this.
• Synthesis: Victory by changing the goalposts, massive potential failings but solves the problem at hand, violates everyone's bodily self-determination but less so that reaperizing them or scrubbing them from the galaxy. People who hope for something better even in the face of counter-evidence choose this.

Finally

• Rejection: Not part of the initial design, added for those who were so appalled by the options presented they just wanted to scream "no". Chosen by people who were so appalled by the options presented they no longer cared about the characters or setting, or those who did still care but wanted to spite Bioware, or those looking for another option (who generally did not like what they then found)

All are poorly thought out in the context of the narrative, but custom-designed to cause disagreement because each is aimed at different types of people, who will never agree.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 13 juillet 2012 - 07:00 .

[Taboo]

I choose Destroy because I believe it best fits what I saw needing to be done. The other options interfere far, far too much. I can't change the way things are in Synthesis, and I can't create an authoritarian AI to police the galaxy, as my morals may go against the consensus of everyone. And Refuse is just, well, no.

One final disgusting act stops everything. Monstrous, unethical, unjustifiable, but I plan on taking responsibility for it.

I'd imagine that Miranda is going to be the only thing preventing my Shepard from putting a bullet through his head.

I never wanted a happy ending and I don't have one, but what I do have is a glimmer of hope, something bittersweet, which better reflects core thematic material to me.

[Ieldra]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
the level of opposition to the explicit propositions of Synthesis in this thread alone should be evidence enough to those supporting the idea that they have no right to make that choice on behalf of the BSN, nevermind an entire galaxy.

Additionally they have no right to exterminate the Geth, nor any right to assume control of the Reapers and the power that provides nor the right to deny existence to the galaxy's space-travel-capable races by refusing to use the device the galaxies representatives constructed.

All of the possible actions damage someones self-determination. the question is how much and how many.

In that context synthesis is just as viable and morally resonable as any of the other options. Not _more_ not _less_ simply comparable.

I'd say exactly not comparable, but different in the mindset they appeal to. For me, a change in the biochemistry that encodes your genetic information (as opposed to that information) isn't such a big thing. I find it incomprehensible that people make so much of it. Were it just the biochemical change without the added ability to mindlink, likely people wouldn't even notice anything is different. I think it's more the idea than the reality that makes people uncomfortable.

Anyway, people's moral intuition would probably tell them to do nothing. Only that's not an option because you kill this cycle by doing nothing *and* you don't solve any of the problems, neither the very real problem of the harvesting cycle nor the less tangible organic/synthetic problem.

@Fandango9641:
You give moral principles a totally unjustified weight. The Refuse option is sacrificing the life of this cycle on the altar of a principle. It's about the most self-centered decision you can make: let everyone else die so that you can keep your hands clean.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 juillet 2012 - 08:45 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Synthesis creates a utopia, and from the programming of the Catalyst a system of perfect order, otherwise it would never have been suggested. It brings order to the chaos. The thing about utopias is that someone always introduces chaos to the system. It is inevitable. Nature finds a way. Will it come from the birth of life on a new world at some point in the future? Or will it come in the form of visitors from a nearby galaxy? Then what happens?

[Taboo]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Synthesis creates a utopia, and from the programming of the Catalyst a system of perfect order, otherwise it would never have been suggested. It brings order to the chaos. The thing about utopias is that someone always introduces chaos to the system. It is inevitable. Nature finds a way. Will it come from the birth of life on a new world at some point in the future? Or will it come in the form of visitors from a nearby galaxy? Then what happens?

Gimme danger, little stranger, let me feel your disease.

God I hope you get this reference.

PLEASE GET IT.

[Ieldra]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Synthesis creates a utopia, and from the programming of the Catalyst a system of perfect order, otherwise it would never have been suggested. It brings order to the chaos. The thing about utopias is that someone always introduces chaos to the system. It is inevitable. Nature finds a way. Will it come from the birth of life on a new world at some point in the future? Or will it come in the form of visitors from a nearby galaxy? Then what happens?

Actually, no. Control brings order, Destroy brings chaos, or so are the thematic associations. Synthesis brings balance between them.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Synthesis creates a utopia, and from the programming of the Catalyst a system of perfect order, otherwise it would never have been suggested. It brings order to the chaos. The thing about utopias is that someone always introduces chaos to the system. It is inevitable. Nature finds a way. Will it come from the birth of life on a new world at some point in the future? Or will it come in the form of visitors from a nearby galaxy? Then what happens?

Actually, no. Control brings order, Destroy brings chaos, or so are the thematic associations. Synthesis brings balance between them.

Pretty sure I didn't see chaos in any of the endings.

But hearing you say chaos makes me think of this.

I hope you've seen this film.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'd say exactly not comparable, but different in the mindset they appeal to. For me, a change in the biochemistry that encodes your genetic information (as opposed to that information) isn't such a big thing. I find it incomprehensible that people make so much of it. Were it just the biochemical change without the added ability to mindlink, likely people wouldn't even notice anything is different. I think it's more the idea than the reality that makes people uncomfortable.

If all Synthesis does is leave everything exactly the same, it’s useless. Worse than useless, actually. You’ve moved goalposts so far in your attempt to rationalize and justify Synthesis that you’ve completely eliminated it.

I’m sorry, but the doublethink is incomprehensible.

Modifié par lillitheris, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:19 .

[lillitheris]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

@Fandango9641:
You give moral principles a totally unjustified weight. The Refuse option is sacrificing the life of this cycle on the altar of a principle. It's about the most self-centered decision you can make: let everyone else die so that you can keep your hands clean.

I'm sorry but being an active participant in the subversion or annihilation of an entire species just isn't an option for me....you see (and i'll say it again, though the point seems lost on many here) I just don't have the right. And neither do you! Besides, without metagaming knowledge, how could one know that making that particular choice in good moral faith would result in the game giving the entire galaxy the finger? I know I didn't and I'm pretty sure it shouldnt.

If you didn’t understand that you were going to lose if the Crucible didn’t work, you weren’t paying attention. I’ll have to assume Shepard did, at least, so picking Refuse is just being directly responsible for murdering everybody. You’re an active participant in the annihilation of every species.

You can wish the game was different, and that the Reapers were defeatable…but they aren’t. It’s abundantly clear.

Modifié par lillitheris, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:34 .

[lillitheris]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Oh I know now (if the EC made one thing crystal clear, its that). Prior to it's launch? Not so much.

Well, as I said. It was perfectly clear in the game. For the record, I would have like to have seen an (un)conventional option…but there wasn’t one.

[I Am Robot]

Ok to make the argument more constructive and make it easier for people who are new to this topic (I know I'm reletively new as well) to join the discussion, I'm going to point out what I think are each sides main arguments:

Opposing Synthesis:
1. Synthesis changes the races genetics in a way that they no longer exist as they did before. The races of the pre-war galaxy are no more.
2. To do what has been done in point 1 without the consent of the people of the galaxy is horrible.
3. Individuals lose their individuality. Collective thought, similar to the geth before uploading the reaper program, has now taken the place of individuals and their opinions.
4. Synthesis indoctrinates individuals to some point. (some ending theories suggest that synthesis is the catalyst tricking Shepard so that he (the catalyst) can control all of the intelligent races in the galaxy)

Supporting Synthesis:
1. Synthesis, although it modifies the genes of different races does not take away the racial identity of the races therefore the races still exist. Salarians keep their identity as salarians and humans keep their identity as humans although their genes may have changed.
2.(counter argument to point 2 opposing synthesis) There is no way to know if the races of the galaxy approve of any of the other 3 actions that are available.
3.(counter argument) Individuals are still individual. The ability to understand other life forms is gained through thought not peoples mind being connected to a network. This is clear in the EC epilogue.

I think Synthesis is the best moral choice.
Control: Although your goal is to save the races of the galaxy and help rebuild their homes, you are putting other races under your direct control to do so. Methods are just as important as the goals.
Destroy: You are destroying a race, other seperate synthetics and what remains of the minds of thousands of ancient races.
Refuse: If any one, other than Shepard, where to die if I chose synthesis I would have chosen refusal.
but synthesis is the only option where all the people of the galaxy are saved and the former inhabitants are set free.
I am quit certain that, as I have mentioned many times before, Individuals are still individuals and races keep their identity despite the changes in their DNA.
But there is still the fact that you don't know if the people of the galaxy approve of your actions but the same is true about all of the other endings. There is no way to know what the collective opinion of the galaxy about the final decision is.
This is my view you might see it completely diffrently. 

Modifié par Farid-Yoda-N7, 17 juillet 2012 - 07:44 .

[DrZann]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...
...
2. To do what has been done in point 1 without the consent of the people of the galaxy is horrible.
...

Didn't the EC address this? Since we learn that Synthesis can not be forced.

[I Am Robot]

DrZann wrote...

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...
...
2. To do what has been done in point 1 without the consent of the people of the galaxy is horrible.
...

Didn't the EC address this? Since we learn that Synthesis can not be forced.

The catalyst does say that synthesis can not be forced. But by "forced" he could mean it can't happen if the races aren't ready, and there is no indication that an individual can refuse or accept synthesis. one subtle indication is not enough reassurance for many people (me included).

[DrZann]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...
The catalyst does say that synthesis can not be forced. But by "forced" he could mean it can't happen if the races aren't ready, and there is no indication that an individual can refuse or accept synthesis. one subtle indication is not enough reassurance for many people (me included).

Interesting. In which case how do they qualify the species as ready or unready?

[I Am Robot]

DrZann wrote...

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...
The catalyst does say that synthesis can not be forced. But by "forced" he could mean it can't happen if the races aren't ready, and there is no indication that an individual can refuse or accept synthesis. one subtle indication is not enough reassurance for many people (me included).

Interesting. In which case how do they qualify the species as ready or unready?

Well I'm not sure but it seems that if the races have completed the crucible and have connected it to the citadel they are considered "ready" from the catalyst's point of view. 

Modifié par Farid-Yoda-N7, 14 juillet 2012 - 06:27 .

[Ieldra]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

DrZann wrote...

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...
...
2. To do what has been done in point 1 without the consent of the people of the galaxy is horrible.
...

Didn't the EC address this? Since we learn that Synthesis can not be forced.

The catalyst does say that synthesis can not be forced. But by "forced" he could mean it can't happen if the races aren't ready, and there is no indication that an individual can refuse or accept synthesis. one subtle indication is not enough reassurance for many people (me included).

Yes, I think there is no way out of accepting that *some* change is done to everyone. As I see it, everyone gets the means to naturally integrate technology, however this is realized, nanotech, genetics, a combination thereof, it doesn't matter, and the ability to mindlink, but nobody's forced to actually use the new abilities. People can, if they want, live as they did before.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 juillet 2012 - 07:37 .

[I Am Robot]

Ieldra2 wrote...

the ability to mindlink, but nobody's forced to actually use the new abilities. People can, if they want, live as they did before.

 I don't think the game states that people gain the ability to mindlink after synthesis. Are sure synthesis causes people to have this ability?

[Ieldra]

Farid-Yoda-N7 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

the ability to mindlink, but nobody's forced to actually use the new abilities. People can, if they want, live as they did before.

I don't think the game states that people gain the ability to mindlink after synthesis. Are sure synthesis causes people to have this ability?

It's an interpretation of the statement that the legacy of past cycles will be linked to everyone. Not 100% conclusive, no, but very plausible. At the very least, it must be an option immediately available, maybe facilitated by integrated technology.