9089 réponses à ce sujet

[Vigilant111]

@Ieldra2: all we are asking is that you recognize that there are imperfections in synthesis, so far u only said something like "yeah that needs more clarification" or oh I think BW can take care of that when the EC comes out, neither here or there no biggie... I think it is quite rigid in your mind the idea that synthesis is the better out of the three cos BW said so, and THAT counts as official and now it is up to your imagination to legitimize this implication, and you cannot possibly say anything bad about synthesis

Modifié par Vigilant111, 19 juin 2012 - 06:56 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

So, yes. You wanted to know why giving these "options" is bad. You have a real odd way of interpreting simple concepts. Options imply that these can be refused. And guess what? Synthesis cannot be refused by anyone but you. Giving also implies a gift. But it is not given. It is forced. Once you have forced synthesis on the races, obviously without their consent, then it is irreversible. So, yes, you are a dictator, and yes, it is elitist, because you think it is better than their current life, which they seem to enjoy, if it wasn't for the brat and the reapers.

To be fair, Ieldra2 says that there is an option to decline it — by some means that are ‘irrelevant’. So we know that the whole thing is totally optional (and that somehow that doesn‘t completely invalidate it) but not why this is the case.

Let's go back to the cinematics that he doesn't like. That's what we see. Looks forced to me. Even the vegetation. So, if we answer his hypothetical option with "Cool, let's do it." then what? Does that make synthesis all of a sudden less forced, because he presented a hypothetical option?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 juin 2012 - 07:04 .

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

So, yes. You wanted to know why giving these "options" is bad. You have a real odd way of interpreting simple concepts. Options imply that these can be refused. And guess what? Synthesis cannot be refused by anyone but you. Giving also implies a gift. But it is not given. It is forced. Once you have forced synthesis on the races, obviously without their consent, then it is irreversible. So, yes, you are a dictator, and yes, it is elitist, because you think it is better than their current life, which they seem to enjoy, if it wasn't for the brat and the reapers.

To be fair, Ieldra2 says that there is an option to decline it — by some means that are ‘irrelevant’. So we know that the whole thing is totally optional (and that somehow that doesn‘t completely invalidate it) but not why this is the case.

To be exact, I said two things:
(1) That there *are* physical changes made by the Synthesis but that you could live on as before, ignoring any new possibilities, which means that your life doesn't necessarily change.
(2) That it is conceivable that the change may be reversible on an individual level, depending on the technology used.
Of course I have no way to tell if (2) is actually true. I find (1) very plausible though.

BTW: as an addendum to my previous post: I approach the whole ending scenario partly from an out-of-world perspective. You may regard that as somewhat dishonest but given the crap spouted by the Catalyst I can see no other alternative if I want to save the story for myself.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 07:08 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

So, yes. You wanted to know why giving these "options" is bad. You have a real odd way of interpreting simple concepts. Options imply that these can be refused. And guess what? Synthesis cannot be refused by anyone but you. Giving also implies a gift. But it is not given. It is forced. Once you have forced synthesis on the races, obviously without their consent, then it is irreversible. So, yes, you are a dictator, and yes, it is elitist, because you think it is better than their current life, which they seem to enjoy, if it wasn't for the brat and the reapers.

To be fair, Ieldra2 says that there is an option to decline it — by some means that are ‘irrelevant’. So we know that the whole thing is totally optional (and that somehow that doesn‘t completely invalidate it) but not why this is the case.

To be exact, I said two things:
(1) That there *are* physical changes made by the Synthesis but that you could live on as before, ignoring any new possibilities, which means that your life doesn't necessarily change.
(2) That it is conceivable that the change may be reversible on an individual level, depending on the technology used.
Of course I have no way to tell if (2) is actually true. I find (1) very plausible though.

BTW: as an addendum to my previous post: I approach the whole ending scenario partly from an out-of-world perspective. You may regard that as somewhat dishonest but given the crap spouted by the Catalyst I can see no other alternative if I want to save the story for myself.

And where do you get these ideas from? These are rules you have invented and are pulled from thin air.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 juin 2012 - 07:19 .

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
You have created a large array of hypothetical outcomes which you view as truth.

No, I do not. I've said so about two dozen times in this thread. It is one of many possible scenarios. Though I don't think it's accidental that most other good Synthesis scenarios are similar to mine. In the outcome anyway, if not in the technical details.

However, none of those are important, because of that dictatorial and elitist decision you've made to get there in the first place.

And here we differ fundamentally. Results matter, and deontological morality doesn't trump everything else. I know you disagree with that, but it's my perspective. The bigger the decision, the more important the consequentialist perspective becomes. Sacrificing the future of the galaxy on the altar of a principle is just not acceptable for me. 

Actually, it's not I who makes an "elitist and dictatorial" decision, but everyone. The setup is like that. One person decides the future of the galaxy, and the galaxy has to live with it. 

Edit:
I didn't make "rules". I said I found one plausible and the other possible.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 07:26 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
You have created a large array of hypothetical outcomes which you view as truth.

No, I do not. I've said so about two dozen times in this thread. It is one of many possible scenarios. Though I don't think it's accidental that most other good Synthesis scenarios are similar to mine. In the outcome anyway, if not in the technical details.

However, none of those are important, because of that dictatorial and elitist decision you've made to get there in the first place.

And here we differ fundamentally. Results matter, and deontological morality doesn't trump everything else. I know you disagree with that, but it's my perspective. The bigger the decision, the more important the consequentialist perspective becomes. Sacrificing the future of the galaxy on the altar of a principle is just not acceptable for me. 

And actually, it's not I who makes an "elitist and dictatorial" decision, but everyone. The setup is like that. One person decides the future of the galaxy, and the galaxy has to live with it. 

Edit:
I didn't make "rules". I said I found one plausible and the other possible.

Yes. The end justify the means, right? I cannot believe you fall for that.

What we know is what the brat tells us and what the crispy chip cinematics show us. Nothing there is optional and everything there is forced once you invoke synthesis. Right up to the vegetation.

You really should ask the moderators to move threads like these to the fan fiction forum. Before we know it, people start to believe your fantasy. It is fine that you want to role play, that's what the franchise is for, but do not present that as fact with a large web of threads scattered around this forum.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 19 juin 2012 - 08:06 .

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

@Taboo, I disagree that choosing one of the options makes you morally repugnant. If anything it is the universe that is morally repugnant for contriving a situation where you have to choose (or do nothing, which is still a choice) but that doesn't work either. The universe is indifferent, you may choose something with horrendous results but you can't be found wanting morally unless you had engineered that situation yourself or chose to twist it to your own advantage at the cost of others.

I blame myself for having to choose any of the options at all. This is why I say I must assume responsibility. I violate all beings in Synthesis. I enslave beings in Control and I senselessly murder in Destroy.

The Universe does not make the choice, as it is indifferent. I make the choice I was told to, by the people. They wished for the Reapers to be stopped and nothing more. I will not use my own desires to twist their words. Everything else is a blow back.

I am a monster for killing the Reapers. I am a monster for potentially killing the Geth.

I outright refuse to glamorize the situation as others have done. To do so would be dishonest. My Shepard must take responsibility for his actions afterword and if people wish him to go to trial he will, as I would.

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
My challenge is still open, lillitheris: create a scenario that works, makes sense, is closer to the description as written and still follows the premise that Bioware intended this as a reasonably good ending. You'll have to make sense of the "new...DNA" of course. And of Mike Gambles' "There is no more synthetic or organic, just life". Or....perhaps you agree that this makes no sense? Then why do you insist that I use it?

Because you’re advocating for the option.

So...suppose someone else made the same scenario I did but didn't advocate it - this person could get away with selectively discarding things that make no sense while I can't? That's using double standards.

A misunderstanding about what ‘advocate’ means? If person X made the argument you’re making for your version of synthesis (=advocating), then I would argue with that person.

If that person calls it something other than ‘Synthesis’, such as ‘My Personal Theory About Singularity That Could Have Been In ME3 But Wasn’t’, then I would not argue with them. Or you.

BTW, I'm advocating for the option because I'm attracted to the themes I see lurking underneath the technical details. I think I've touched on that several times in this thread, starting with the OP. The description is a load of crap but it still tells us something. I'm taking that something and try to construct a scenario that works from it.

So don’t call it ‘Synthesis’. It’s not. It’s your headcanon singularity theory.

And you've still not taken up my challenge.

No, and I won’t, because Synthesis makes no sense. None. You are arguing that it does, and I’m simply showing that you’re wrong. I have no interest in entertaining the idiocy myself.

It’s very much relevant, especially the question of what happens when the threshold is crossed. It’s integral, really, given the entire premise – organic vs. synthetic — of the ‘solution’ to begin with. I don’t need technical details, I just want to understand how the whole thing works conceptually.

You say you don't need technical details. And it's those I see as irrelevant, nothing else. To make a guess how things could work conceptually, I'd need to make a lot of assumptions about things we don't know - 

So, just to be clear, you’re willing to make this decision based on your own reasoning that is

1. Contrary to what the Catalyst actually says it is in many parts, and unable to solve the actual problem proposed by the Catalyst; and

2. Completely undefined for the many of significant parts such as ‘who does it affect’, ‘what does it do’, ‘is everyone still going to be the same person’; and

3. Includes things that you’ve invented that the Catalyst says absolutely nothing about like being able to ‘opt out’ of the change, without explaining why it doesn’t further undo the entire solution and how the opting out works to begin with;

Instead of selecting one of the two alternatives that have well-defined results? Because it makes no sense. At all.
 
Let me ask you in very clear terms: are you saying that if you were to go back to the ME3 ending to advise Shepard, you would tell him or her to select Synthesis without being able to explain how any of it works, or if it works at all?

And now you've brought me to talk about things I'd rather relegate to post-EC times. I'll stop.

Stop calling it ‘Synthesis’.

Modifié par lillitheris, 19 juin 2012 - 08:12 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

And actually, it's not I who makes an "elitist and dictatorial" decision, but everyone. The setup is like that. One person decides the future of the galaxy, and the galaxy has to live with it.

Another poster, I think earlier in this thread, simply admitted he was an elitist. That's fine by me and I let it rest. But don't hide the fact you are an elitist behind "it's a valid game option". That just makes me laugh.

BTW: The above got lost in the editing shuffle. Sorry about that.

[Nimrodell]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Heeden wrote...

@Taboo, I disagree that choosing one of the options makes you morally repugnant. If anything it is the universe that is morally repugnant for contriving a situation where you have to choose (or do nothing, which is still a choice) but that doesn't work either. The universe is indifferent, you may choose something with horrendous results but you can't be found wanting morally unless you had engineered that situation yourself or chose to twist it to your own advantage at the cost of others.

I blame myself for having to choose any of the options at all. This is why I say I must assume responsibility. I violate all beings in Synthesis. I enslave beings in Control and I senselessly murder in Destroy.

The Universe does not make the choice, as it is indifferent. I make the choice I was told to, by the people. They wished for the Reapers to be stopped and nothing more. I will not use my own desires to twist their words. Everything else is a blow back.

I am a monster for killing the Reapers. I am a monster for potentially killing the Geth.

I outright refuse to glamorize the situation as others have done. To do so would be dishonest. My Shepard must take responsibility for his actions afterword and if people wish him to go to trial he will, as I would.

Taboo, someone has to choose, that's the grim reality of wars. There are different Shepards out there, heroes, anti-heroes, unwilling heroes etc., but they all have one thing in common, they have to choose and even with rejecting of choice they are actually making a choice and each decision has its consequences. For my Shepard for example, there is no afterwards whatever she chooses, because I don't play multiplayer - same as in universe of your Shepard, the geth are dead - but we have one thing in common, both of our Shepards need to choose.

I was trying to explain that catch 22 couple of months ago to Angry One, but s/he kept for some reason misinterpreting the archetype I was presenting. I hope that this time I'll be luckier in presenting it.
Throught of history of literature we encounter stories about willing or unwilling heroes. One of them is Noah or, lets go even more back in history, Utnapishtim, both of them were informed by God or gods that the world has to be purged for it's wickedness, corruption (in Noah's case it's return to original order, in Utnapishtim's case it's more like setting new order of things). And both of them had two choices, either to refuse warning from God or gods and inform others, or just plainly ignore those warnings, or to actually try to save the little they could. I still haven't found a study that condemns them as immoral people and in Utnapishtim's case, we know that he was actually priased as a wise man (Epic of Gilgamesh - when Gilgamesh finds him in his search for immortality). Both of them chose to actually heed the warnings and be quiet about it. They just followed simple proverb my people has about such situations - hornless doesn't attack the one with horns. I could keep going and naming heroes that were forced to choose something that nowadays we could brand as immoral while munching snacks in our comfy chairs, full of wisdom, principles, well-nourished and clean - and yet, in the past 3000 years no one perceived them as such - because they are the reason why human kind survived, sometimes changed, but survived when more powerful entity wanted to obliterate it.

It's one thing to kill in the war while defending yourself, family, a country, wage a war for what you believe is right, and the other thing is killing and torturing people because someone has twisted mind and enjoys it or wants to invade, enforce his own order - Shepard's case is not the latter one. I mean talking about morally abhorrent choices, there is not war that isn't morally abhorrent... and Shepard's not dealing with Teletubbies, s/he is dealing with something that is utterly unknown and very potent... so no, each Shepard that is guided by wish to save life is not morally repugnant. Now, the only difference is in how Shepard perceives things, his/hers personality - and Shepard up there deciding can't please everyone nor should s/he try to do it.
For some Shepards the goal is to stop the reapers for others is to save life - both goals are valid. After all, it's story and luckily for us, so far none of us was actually forced into such real life situation.

The greatest misfortune of Mass Effect 3 ending is actually story designer's playing with indertemination spots - too many unknows to be twisted by our own fears, our own different understandings, our own different ways of life and pasts. They played with that co-creator phenomena, but that playing was truly naive - it didn't bringt out speculations, it brought out true monsters from Id and for me personally, BSN boards in past three months became true battlefield of preconceptions and prejudices, a place where personal demons are flourishing.

So, no, your Shepard is not morally repugnant because there was no choice that would keep any of the Shepards clean, and yet, by choosing to act, Shepard stopped the reapers.

Edit: re-worded better one sentence.

Modifié par Nimrodell, 19 juin 2012 - 08:45 .

[Taboo]

 I take responsibility because that's who I am. My Shepard is an extension of myself. I do not fear repercussions from people for the destruction of the Reapers, but I do, if, say the Geth are alive in one playhrough.

I see all sapient life as equal here. If the Geth are a blowback to a choice consensus that they were involved in, I am morally repugnant. I have destroyed life. I may not be responsible in your eyes, but I am very difficult on myself, as my Shepard is. I feel that death. I bear that weight on mu shoulders. I plan on taking responsibility for that in my head, as I know I would in real life.

My hope is that in this destruction, people will rise up and help one another to create a better place to live. Without the overbearance of Control, and the violation of Synthesis.

I will not glamorize it, as doing so would diminish the sadness I have caused. I can never justify that, but I can take responsibility.

[lillitheris]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 I take responsibility because that's who I am. My Shepard is an extension of myself. I do not fear repercussions from people for the destruction of the Reapers, but I do, if, say the Geth are alive in one playhrough.

That horse is way too high for you, sir Turn the drama down…

Modifié par lillitheris, 19 juin 2012 - 09:08 .

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 I take responsibility because that's who I am. My Shepard is an extension of myself. I do not fear repercussions from people for the destruction of the Reapers, but I do, if, say the Geth are alive in one playhrough.

That horse is way too high for you, sir Turn the drama down…

I must. To do so is to create a fantasy world. It is irresponsible to disregard death. If the price is the Geth and the Reapers to ensure the sanctity of all life then so be it.

But I sure as **** am going to feel bad about it and will take responsibility.

[Shaigunjoe]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 I take responsibility because that's who I am. My Shepard is an extension of myself. I do not fear repercussions from people for the destruction of the Reapers, but I do, if, say the Geth are alive in one playhrough.

I see all sapient life as equal here. If the Geth are a blowback to a choice consensus that they were involved in, I am morally repugnant. I have destroyed life. I may not be responsible in your eyes, but I am very difficult on myself, as my Shepard is. I feel that death. I bear that weight on mu shoulders. I plan on taking responsibility for that in my head, as I know I would in real life.

My hope is that in this destruction, people will rise up and help one another to create a better place to live. Without the overbearance of Control, and the violation of Synthesis.

I will not glamorize it, as doing so would diminish the sadness I have caused. I can never justify that, but I can take responsibility.

Its not the immediate repurcussions to Shepard I would fear, its the message that Shep sends out throughout the preceding centuries that machines are bad and need to be destroyed.  Though willingly retreating into a dark age would be the perfect lovecraftian response to the reaper threat.

[Taboo]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Its not the immediate repurcussions to Shepard I would fear, its the message that Shep sends out throughout the preceding centuries that machines are bad and need to be destroyed.  Though willingly retreating into a dark age would be the perfect lovecraftian response to the reaper threat.

That is why I must take responsibility.

Synthesis says you are not trustworty Synthetics.
Control says that slavery is okay.

I must take responsibility for the chaos I will create. Life will begin again, and I hope, that with my Shepard's influence, we can rebuild a new era from the ashes. Sans Synthesis, sans Control.

My action is disgusting and I must not diminish it's horrors. We must be careful, or we will in turn, destroy ourselves.

[Ieldra]

Vigilant111 wrote...
@Ieldra2: all we are asking is that you recognize that there are imperfections in synthesis, so far u only said something like "yeah that needs more clarification" or oh I think BW can take care of that when the EC comes out, neither here or there no biggie... I think it is quite rigid in your mind the idea that synthesis is the better out of the three cos BW said so, and THAT counts as official and now it is up to your imagination to legitimize this implication, and you cannot possibly say anything bad about synthesis

I'm arguing from the position that none of the choices is meant to be outright bad, but can be seen as good or bad because of people's personal views on things. So if people paint a scenario that everyone can only see as bad, I reject it.

As for being the best - I think it was I who said "There will be new wonders, but also new horrors" first. About two dozen times, actually. Just consider the possiblity of mind hacking. Or pressure to self-modify. jtav has pointed out other problems. Believe me, I'm not at all insensitive to the potential for bad stuff. I'm playing a tabletop RPG that combines transhumanism and horror and I'm getting enough inspiration in that direction. If I come across as overly idealistic at times, it's because others are determined to *only* see the bad stuff. Is Synthesis a safe choice? Certainly not. Both Destroy and Synthesis are incredibly risky for very different reasons. If I wanted safe, I'd choose Control.

And....Imperfections? LOL, as written the whole thing makes no sense. People are perfectly justified in rejecting it all on those grounds. I just don't see why *I* should reject it if I can see a way out by using the underlying themes and unpublished material. On the other hand, I can tell you this: if Bioware comes clear and says we're supposed to take the "new...DNA" literally, I'll throw my hands up in defeat and agree with everyone who's said I shouldn't have bothered in the first place.

[Vigilant111]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

 I take responsibility because that's who I am. My Shepard is an extension of myself. I do not fear repercussions from people for the destruction of the Reapers, but I do, if, say the Geth are alive in one playhrough.

I see all sapient life as equal here. If the Geth are a blowback to a choice consensus that they were involved in, I am morally repugnant. I have destroyed life. I may not be responsible in your eyes, but I am very difficult on myself, as my Shepard is. I feel that death. I bear that weight on mu shoulders. I plan on taking responsibility for that in my head, as I know I would in real life.

My hope is that in this destruction, people will rise up and help one another to create a better place to live. Without the overbearance of Control, and the violation of Synthesis.

I will not glamorize it, as doing so would diminish the sadness I have caused. I can never justify that, but I can take responsibility.

Its not the immediate repurcussions to Shepard I would fear, its the message that Shep sends out throughout the preceding centuries that machines are bad and need to be destroyed.  Though willingly retreating into a dark age would be the perfect lovecraftian response to the reaper threat.

No, that is not the message

The message is that organics should have never created synthetics in the first place, it is the organics that are bad, and I agree with Taboo, the responsibility in destroy exceeds all other options

Modifié par Vigilant111, 19 juin 2012 - 09:28 .

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

On the other hand, I can tell you this: if Bioware comes clear and says we're supposed to take the "new...DNA" literally, I'll throw my hands up in defeat and agree with everyone who's said I shouldn't have bothered in the first place.

Uh, no. You've put more though into this than anyone else. If anything, you should be lauded for creating a better version of Bioware's mess. You should be very pleased with yourself. As much as we disagree, I respect you greatly for going above and beyond the norm here.

[Ieldra]

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its not the immediate repurcussions to Shepard I would fear, its the message that Shep sends out throughout the preceding centuries that machines are bad and need to be destroyed.  Though willingly retreating into a dark age would be the perfect lovecraftian response to the reaper threat.

It would indeed. That's actually one important reason why I'll never choose Destroy. The Lovecraftian nature of the Reapers has just been subverted, to my immense relief, and I won't push them back into a corner I never wanted them in in the first place.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 juin 2012 - 09:33 .

[Nimrodell]

Taboo-XX wrote...

 I see all sapient life as equal here. If the Geth are a blowback to a choice consensus that they were involved in, I am morally repugnant. I have destroyed life. I may not be responsible in your eyes, but I am very difficult on myself, as my Shepard is. I feel that death. I bear that weight on mu shoulders. I plan on taking responsibility for that in my head, as I know I would in real life.

Ah, don't confuse things, I'm not talking about personal feeling of responsibility and being morally repugnant - there are Shepards that won't feel that and there are those who will like you do and it's commendable (my Shepard regrets the day she joined the army because in her youth and naivety, she didn't realize that she'll actually be forced to take life, it was all about heroism at the beginning, ideals she had (some of them imprinted in her genetic memory) that stemmed from all those tales about great heroes, she didn't realize that those same heroes had blood on their hands). And trust me, personally she'd spend her entire life if she'd lived standing at the brink of hell itself if need be, taking responsibility for what transpired for the better or for worse - I don't think she would ever recover, because I know myself. But objectively, if I were one of those soldier on Earth in your Shepard's playthrough, it might happen that I don't agree with your Shepard's decision after everything passes, I may speculate, but your Shepard would be still a hero for me, because your Shepard gave me another tomorrow, a chance to live - and to be honest, I would not even pose a question about responsibility - I would perceive that as utter bigotry, because none of us was tossed into that hot cauldron, none of us fought the battle for the life itself for so long. I sincerely hope you understand what I'm trying to tell you. Shepard didn't fight for his/hers own goals, nor for some political or economic predominance - Shepard fought for galaxy to survive - not selfish goals. Shepard's consistency in not giving up to save the galaxy is a true brand of an hero.

This is a study I wrote before Mass Effect 3, perhaps if you have some extra time you could read it and understand what I'm trying this whole time to tell fellow forumites here. You can find it here.

Modifié par Nimrodell, 19 juin 2012 - 09:33 .

[Heeden]

[quote]lillitheris wrote...

[quote]Heeden wrote...
Please to explain circuits on foliage in cinematic. Also, I’m curious to hear how you explain how the synthesis differentiates between those cells that are to be hybridized from those that aren’t.[/quote]

I can think of 4 possible explanations

1. Bionic parts and "macro-chips" (like micro-chips but much, much bigger) magicked out of thin air and integrated with all living organisms, glowing brightly enough to be visible through skin, but only at certain angles.

2. Bioluminescence that follows the patterns of circuitry, greatly magnified.

3. A reflection or projection from something happening off-screen.

4. Artistic rendering of space-magic, like biotic lightning.

[quote]And please explain how the ‘opting out’ happens.

And please also explain how, exactly, the opt-outs actually DO survive?[/quote]

Like somebody given biotic abilities against their will, you either choose to utilise them or you don't.

[quote]Here’s the thing, once again. I don’t care what you headcanon says about Synthesis. Whatever works for you is fine. What is not fine is comparing your headcanon Synthesis to non-headcanoned Destroy and Control.[/quote]

The end results of Destroy and Control are also head-canoned. Any of them could end in a golden age or a dark age - it's your Shepard, your galaxy and your story.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...
Its not the immediate repurcussions to Shepard I would fear, its the message that Shep sends out throughout the preceding centuries that machines are bad and need to be destroyed.  Though willingly retreating into a dark age would be the perfect lovecraftian response to the reaper threat.

It would indeed. That's actually one important reason why I'll never choose Destroy. The Lovecraftian nature of the Reapers has just been subverted, to my immense relief, and I won't push them into a corner I never wanted them in in the first place.

It is not your responsibility to take care of things ten thousand years in the future, nor dictate how life functions. Man creates his own problems.

[ghost9191]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Heeden wrote...

@Taboo, I disagree that choosing one of the options makes you morally repugnant. If anything it is the universe that is morally repugnant for contriving a situation where you have to choose (or do nothing, which is still a choice) but that doesn't work either. The universe is indifferent, you may choose something with horrendous results but you can't be found wanting morally unless you had engineered that situation yourself or chose to twist it to your own advantage at the cost of others.

I blame myself for having to choose any of the options at all. This is why I say I must assume responsibility. I violate all beings in Synthesis. I enslave beings in Control and I senselessly murder in Destroy.

The Universe does not make the choice, as it is indifferent. I make the choice I was told to, by the people. They wished for the Reapers to be stopped and nothing more. I will not use my own desires to twist their words. Everything else is a blow back.

I am a monster for killing the Reapers. I am a monster for potentially killing the Geth.

I outright refuse to glamorize the situation as others have done. To do so would be dishonest. My Shepard must take responsibility for his actions afterword and if people wish him to go to trial he will, as I would.

stop the reapers whatever the cost right, only one option does that, not saying which one is better because none are, just which one is easier to live with. which synthesis and control turn out to be pretty easy considering your shep dies in both.    

But knowing the reapers are gone for good (or atleast assuming they are) makes destroy the better option for me and the geth are a acceptable cost i guess. they are just machines after all and aren't truly alive. that and machines can be rebuilt

not trying to start something just saying i accept what i did as neccessary

Modifié par ghost9191, 19 juin 2012 - 09:36 .

[Taboo]

 

ghost9191 wrote...

stop the reapers whatever the cost right, only one option does that, not saying which one is better because none are, just which one is easier to live with. which synthesis and control turn out to be pretty easy considering your shep dies in both.     

But knowing the reapers are gone for good (or atleast assuming they are) makes destroy the better option for me and the geth are a acceptable cost i guess. they are just machines after all and aren't truly alive. that and machines can be rebuilt

 

No.

They are sentient and alive. I kill them. I must take responsibility for their destruction. I make my choice by consensus, but I will not let that pervert what I've done.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 19 juin 2012 - 09:36 .

[ghost9191]

well idk about that, i agree about accepting what you did , but not about them being alive, still sucks to destroy them but they do not have a soul. they were created as tools, they believe they are alive and mimic it, emulate if you will lol, but aren't actually alive. my opinion though, still hate destroying them

i mean i know that it is just my opinion, they could be alive even if i choose not to believe it, i might need to accept it

feel like a complete douche for making that fictional choice either way

Modifié par ghost9191, 19 juin 2012 - 09:42 .