9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@CosmicGnosis:
No, being indoctrinated does not automatically invalidate anyone's perspective. Or tell me: does the fact that Saren was indoctrinated make his idea of "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither" any less - or any more - appealing? I'd say no. The idea has merit or it hasn't, and whether it has merit or not is independent of the fact of Saren's indoctrination.

What should be looked at with the utmost suspicion is the proposed means to that end. In Saren's case, he wouldn't have realized his own vision, he just would've made everyone a slave of the Reapers, then dead. Indoctrination uses your own visions against you. It makes you believe co-operating with the Reapers will realize your fondest dreams. That's a lie, but it doesn't make those visions any less valid. Or any more valid.

In the same way, the fact that TIM was indoctrinated does not remove any merit from the idea that controlling the Reapers is to be preferred to destroying them. Nor does it add merit. The idea stands on its own regardless of the mental state of anyone who proposes it. This becomes very clear when TIM can't realize his vision himself anymore because of the indoctrination. But Shepard can - because he's not indoctrinated.

I really cannot emphasize this point enough, since it's what most people completely forget when talking about ME3's endings:

The merit of an idea is independent from the people who propose it. Embracing bad ideas may reflect badly on you, but the opposite is not the case. No idea is more or less bad just because those who propose it are more or less evil. Claiming that is an association fallacy.

That's one reason why indoctrination is not a necessary aspect of the ending in any way. In fact, quite the opposite is true: Bioware has never been overly subtle in their storytelling. If indoctrination were a part of the ending, we would know it. Anything else is nothing more than conspiracy theory.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 octobre 2012 - 09:40 .

[CosmicGnosis]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@CosmicGnosis:
No, being indoctrinated does not automatically invalidate anyone's perspective. Or tell me: does the fact that Saren was indoctrinated make his idea of "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither" any less - or any more - appealing? I'd say no. The idea has merit or it hasn't, and whether it has merit or not is independent of the fact of Saren's indoctrination.

What should be looked at with the utmost suspicion is the proposed means to that end. In Saren's case, he wouldn't have realized his own vision, he just would've made everyone a slave of the Reapers, then dead. Indoctrination uses your own visions against you. It makes you believe co-operating with the Reapers will realize your fondest dreams. That's a lie, but it doesn't make those visions any less valid. Or any more valid.

In the same way, the fact that TIM was indoctrination does not remove any merit from the idea that controlling the Reapers is to be preferred to destroying them. Nor does it add merit. The idea stands on its own regardless of the mental state of anyone who proposes it. This becomes very clear when TIM can't realize his vision himself anymore because of the indoctrination. But Shepard can - because he's not indoctrinated.

There is a Renegade option in the final conversation with TIM that has Shepard demand that he dock the Crucible and start controlling them. TIM seems incapable of actually letting the Crucible dock, despite his vision being somewhat possible. I say somewhat because Control isn't exactly what TIM thought it would be. Basically, you have to become a synthetic.

So your point makes sense. It's not that your goals are invalid, it's that the Reapers incorporate your goals into their plans, and never let you actually achieve them. They can literally dangle it right in front of you, but you lack the will to actually seize it.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 23 octobre 2012 - 09:38 .

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What do you guys think about the conversations with the Illusive Man throughout ME3? I think he makes some good points about Control vs. Destroy, but there is a serious problem with his argument: he's indoctrinated.
And because of that fact, I don't know what point BioWare is trying to make with the final choices. I understand why the Indoctrination Theory is so appealing to many people. In some ways, the final choices make no sense without it. But at the same time, it seems that we are supposed to interpret everything as being literal and truthful. There is no deception.
So then... is Shepard supposed to swallow his pride and admit that the Illusive Man really was on to something all along? But even if that's the case, the guy was indoctrinated. Doesn't that invalidate his whole perspective? And he was only talking about Control. Synthesis is even more extreme.
I really wish that it had been left ambiguous as to whether or not the Illusive Man was indoctrinated. I think revealing that he actually was indoctrinated completely taints his perspective and all others that don't support Destroy.
For example, I want to establish a genuine, mutual peace between us and the Reapers. Because of that, someone can accuse me of obviously being indoctrinated. And no matter what I say, no matter how compelling my arguments may be, I'm automatically wrong. There is no room for debate. It's black and white. I'm wrong because I don't want to kill the Reapers.
Thus, the whole issue is trivialized.

. Just say that he wasn't indoctrinated until he put reaper tech into his head, even then he was still capable of some resistance to it

[Steelcan]

But I also think that TIM would have wanted destroy had he been in his ME2 mindset. Sadly he was relegated to become Space Hitler

[jtav]

No, he'd have wanted Control. He's always been a risk-taker. Using the Reapers to advance humanity is what he'd do.

[Steelcan]

jtav wrote...

No, he'd have wanted Control. He's always been a risk-taker. Using the Reapers to advance humanity is what he'd do.

. If he hadn't been indoctrinated I don't think so.  He's smart enough to realize the dangers if he's thinking clearly.  Also this position is kind of invalidated by him committing suicide. He realizes that wanting control means he is indoctrinated, he then proceeds to end the indoctrination.

Modifié par Steelcan, 23 octobre 2012 - 10:06 .

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

jtav wrote...

No, he'd have wanted Control. He's always been a risk-taker. Using the Reapers to advance humanity is what he'd do.

. If he hadn't been indoctrinated I don't think so.  He's smart enough to realize the dangers if he's thinking clearly.  Also this position is kind of invalidated by him committing suicide. He realizes that wanting control means he is indoctrinated, he then proceeds to end the indoctrination.

I wonder if anyone ever reads my posts.

It is exactly the point that being indoctrinated has no bearing at all on the desirability of controlling the Reapers. I don't want to repeat myself, so please read the first post on this page.

The merit of an idea is independent from those who propose it, their mental state and their morality.

TIM realized that he was indoctrinated, which made him kill himself because he didn't want to be a slave of the Reapers. Perfectly valid reasoning considering indoctrination is supposed to be irreversible. But that doesn't reflect badly on the idea of Control. Nor does it reflect well on it. The idea and its merits or flaws stand independently. As evidenced by the fact that Shepard can choose it - exactly because he's not already controlled by the Reapers.

Edit:
As for TIM's motivations: read ME:Evolution. Back in 2157, Jack Harper wrote the Cerberus Manifesto, where he already said that he wanted to use whatever they'd find out there in the universe for the "betterment of mankind". He would never have chosen Destroy except as the last remaining option after everything else had already failed.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 octobre 2012 - 10:15 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

Steelcan wrote...

He's smart enough to realize the dangers if he's thinking clearly.

We're talking about a guy who was convinced, in spite of everyone telling him it couldn't be done, that bringing Shepard back from the dead and restoring him/her to stock was doable. I think seeing an opportunity to control the Reapers is completely in-character for him.

For that matter, TIM was the only one doing the smart thing in this war: studying Reaper indoctrination - one of (if not *thee*) the enemy's most powerful weapons. Why it didn't occur to anyone else to find a defense against it or somehow use it against the enemy is beyond me.

Sure it may be dangerous, but it's not like we're going to win as is, so there's no point in playing things safe.


It's unfortunate that Control loses some credibility to TIM's indoctrination and the implications therein. On the upside, Shepard concedes that he was right afterall. No way around that one!

[CosmicGnosis]

What about Shepard's Paragon statement about the galaxy not being "ready" to harness the power of the Reapers? As Synthesis fans, do you think that has any merit?

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

He's smart enough to realize the dangers if he's thinking clearly.

We're talking about a guy who was convinced, in spite of everyone telling him it couldn't be done, that bringing Shepard back from the dead and restoring him/her to stock was doable. I think seeing an opportunity to control the Reapers is completely in-character for him.
For that matter, TIM was the only one doing the smart thing in this war: studying Reaper indoctrination - one of (if not *thee*) the enemy's most powerful weapons. Why it didn't occur to anyone else to find a defense against it or somehow use it against the enemy is beyond me.
Sure it may be dangerous, but it's not like we're going to win as is, so there's no point in playing things safe.
It's unfortunate that Control loses some credibility to TIM's indoctrination and the implications therein. On the upside, Shepard concedes that he was right afterall. No way around that one!

. I'm ok with him wanting control. I just think it should have been handled better than he wants it because he is indoctrinated.  Since that seems to be BioWare's reasoning for his sudden change to opposing Shepard.  It would have been nice if his idea was actually given some thought by Shepard instead it is dismissed as impossible.  My argument is that if he had been completely free from indoctrination he would have supported studying reaper tech and indoctrination, but I think he would do this to destroy the reapers.

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It is exactly the point that being indoctrinated has no bearing at all on the desirability of controlling the Reapers. I don't want to repeat myself, so please read the first post on this page.
The merit of an idea is independent from those who propose it, their mental state and their morality.
TIM realized that he was indoctrinated, which made him kill himself because he didn't want to be a slave of the Reapers. Perfectly valid reasoning considering indoctrination is supposed to be irreversible. But that doesn't reflect badly on the idea of Control. Nor does it reflect well on it. The idea and its merits or flaws stand independently. As evidenced by the fact that Shepard can choose it - exactly because he's not already controlled by the Reapers.
Edit:
As for TIM's motivations: read ME:Evolution. Back in 2157, Jack Harper wrote the Cerberus Manifesto, where he already said that he wanted to use whatever they'd find out there in the universe for the "betterment of mankind". He would never have chosen Destroy except as the last remaining option after everything else had already failed.

. But the idea comes from him.  Until he proposed control, Shepard never considered it.  Thus it was not a valid idea until suddenly it existed in ME3, and then Shepard wasn't given the option of agreeing with it.  Control was supposed to be impossible, throughout the game this is said again and again.  And Vendetta confirms that indoctrinated agents argued for control in the past.  So his idea comes from the reaper indoctrination, not his own mind.  And reaper ideas are not valid for organics trying to kill them.  Had he not been indoctrinated he certainly would have still been in favor of studying indoctrination and such but I don't see him aactively opposing Shepard without the indoctrination.

[Steelcan]

As for your idea that the idea of something is independent of the person proposing it. I disagree. An idea is a product of someone's experiences. This prevents an idea being wholly separate from the person that suggested it.

[His Name was HYR!!]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What about Shepard's Paragon statement about the galaxy not being "ready" to harness the power of the Reapers? As Synthesis fans, do you think that has any merit?

I think Para!Shep bases that on the fact TIM succumbed to indoctrination in the process, and that the power was too great for him to handle. So he was not ready for it, since even though he somewhat achieved the goal, he mostly failed. Ergo, not ready.

But the fact the Crucible we built does, in fact, allow us to do so would suggest otherwise.

If the player really believes we're not ready though, then power to them. Still, that Shepard quote is a good way to respond to "TIM was indoctrinated." Yeah, but you're Shepard acknowledged he was "right afterall." Burn!

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What about Shepard's Paragon statement about the galaxy not being "ready" to harness the power of the Reapers? As Synthesis fans, do you think that has any merit?

I think Para!Shep bases that on the fact TIM succumbed to indoctrination in the process, and that the power was too great for him to handle. So he was not ready for it, since even though he somewhat achieved the goal, he mostly failed. Ergo, not ready.

But the fact the Crucible we built does, in fact, allow us to do so would suggest otherwise.

If the player really believes we're not ready though, then power to them. Still, that Shepard quote is a good way to respond to "TIM was indoctrinated." Yeah, but you're Shepard acknowledged he was "right afterall." Burn!

. Auto-Daialogue is an ugly, ugly thing

[His Name was HYR!!]

Steelcan wrote...
I'm ok with him wanting control. I just think it should have been handled better than he wants it because he is indoctrinated.  Since that seems to be BioWare's reasoning for his sudden change to opposing Shepard.  It would have been nice if his idea was actually given some thought by Shepard instead it is dismissed as impossible.  My argument is that if he had been completely free from indoctrination he would have supported studying reaper tech and indoctrination, but I think he would do this to destroy the reapers.

I disagree. TIM is a maverick. He does what people tell him cannot be done: rebuilding Shepard, constructing an AI, traveling through Omega-4 relay. Control of the Reapers is par for the course.

[Steelcan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
I'm ok with him wanting control. I just think it should have been handled better than he wants it because he is indoctrinated.  Since that seems to be BioWare's reasoning for his sudden change to opposing Shepard.  It would have been nice if his idea was actually given some thought by Shepard instead it is dismissed as impossible.  My argument is that if he had been completely free from indoctrination he would have supported studying reaper tech and indoctrination, but I think he would do this to destroy the reapers.

I disagree. TIM is a maverick. He does what people tell him cannot be done: rebuilding Shepard, constructing an AI, traveling through Omega-4 relay. Control of the Reapers is par for the course.

. Yet the only people who advocate it turn out to be indoctrinated.......  Besides, destroying the reapers is also seen as impossible, at least until the magic ass pull that is the crucible.

[rekn2]

good god, i love Ieldra2

[DirtyPhoenix]

Steelcan wrote...

But I also think that TIM would have wanted destroy had he been in his ME2 mindset. Sadly he was relegated to become Space Hitler

He always wanted to control his enemies. Be it ME2 or 3. The collector base dialog and the dialog if you save it comes to mind.

EDIT: exactly this:

Ieldra2 wrote...

As for TIM's
motivations: read ME:Evolution. Back in 2157, Jack Harper wrote the
Cerberus Manifesto, where he already said that he wanted to use whatever
they'd find out there in the universe for the "betterment of mankind".
He would never have chosen Destroy except as the last remaining option
after everything else had already failed.

Modifié par pirate1802, 24 octobre 2012 - 03:32 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Steelcan wrote...

My argument is that if he had been completely free from indoctrination he would have supported studying reaper tech and indoctrination.

Why is that? Studying the ways of your enemy is a reaper-y thing now?

[Heimdall]

Steelcan wrote...

As for your idea that the idea of something is independent of the person proposing it. I disagree. An idea is a product of someone's experiences. This prevents an idea being wholly separate from the person that suggested it.

A good idea can still be a good idea even if the person voicing it is a repulsive individual.

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

What about Shepard's Paragon statement about the galaxy not being "ready" to harness the power of the Reapers? As Synthesis fans, do you think that has any merit?

Not at all. With that kind of attitude, we'd still be sitting in the trees.

The plain fact is, you're never ready for something until you acquire it. You can't be, since you learn by dealing with it. Saying we're not ready is usually just another way of saying "Don't aspire to powers no man should have." As opposed to that, I'm particular to the idea of "stealing fire from the gods".

[Steelcan]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

As for your idea that the idea of something is independent of the person proposing it. I disagree. An idea is a product of someone's experiences. This prevents an idea being wholly separate from the person that suggested it.

A good idea can still be a good idea even if the person voicing it is a repulsive individual.

. But an idea isn't created in a vacuum.  It is shaped by the mind who thinks it.

[Ieldra]

Steelcan wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

As for your idea that the idea of something is independent of the person proposing it. I disagree. An idea is a product of someone's experiences. This prevents an idea being wholly separate from the person that suggested it.

A good idea can still be a good idea even if the person voicing it is a repulsive individual.

But an idea isn't created in a vacuum.  It is shaped by the mind who thinks it.

You may just admit you don't have a point here. Here's your typical evil dictator, who decides to improve his country's transportation infrastructure for military mobilization, and to take measures to reduce child mortality because he needs cannon fodder for his wars.

Of course the evil dictator doesn't get any morality points for having those ideas, but that doesn't affect their merit. Improving a country's transportation infrastructure and reducing child mortality are still good. Or would you deny that? Case closed.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

You may just admit you don't have a point here. Here's your typical evil dictator, who decides to improve his country's transportation infrastructure for military mobilization, and to take measures to reduce child mortality because he needs cannon fodder for his wars.

Of course the evil dictator doesn't get any morality points for having those ideas, but that doesn't affect their merit. Improving a country's transportation infrastructure and reducing child mortality are still good. Or would you deny that? Case closed.

But...but you must remember that it doesn't override other actions. You of all people should know that living where you are Ieldra. Not to dig up ugly past actions (I apologize in advance) but you know that just because good things happen doesn't ovveride the bad.

I like your analogy I just wanted to add a bit.

[Steelcan]

I wasn't thinking from a political point, but a scientific one. Certain ideas are intrinsically linked with their founder. Darwin and natural selection, Copernicus and helio-centrism, Lamarck and inherited traits.

These ideas are linked to their founders, they can't be separated. Whether that's a good thing or not is a different matter.

Modifié par Steelcan, 24 octobre 2012 - 02:00 .