4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Bocks]

...people actually picked anything aside from destroy?

Wow. What terrible commanders.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

People actualy killed their own allies for the 'greater good'

Wow, what terrible commanders.

We could od this all day.

[obZen DF]

Bocks wrote...

...people actually picked anything aside from destroy?

Wow. What terrible commanders.

Go to your Destroy ending thread. Oh wait, it's dead.

[MegaSovereign]

Bocks wrote...

...people actually picked anything aside from destroy?

Wow. What terrible commanders.

From a pragmatic standpoint, Control is the best ending.

You save the most lives and you can use the Reapers to rebuild the relays.

A good commander thinks objectively and doesn't base his decisions on principle or revenge.

[Ageless Face]

Bocks wrote...

...people actually picked anything aside from destroy?

Wow. What terrible commanders.

Terrible commanders? Our Shepards can control an army of gaint machines. You need to be one hell of a leader to do that.

On the other hand... Even I can shoot a tube. 

[Bocks]

And none of you think it's rather tyrannical regardless of moral alignment to control a massive army of unstoppable eldtrich abominations in order to bring "peace" by stomping out conflict and making everyone live in fear of it?

Don't you think that the best ending is the ending in which everyone grows up and learns to deal with their issues without a two kilometer tall machine threatening to turn everyone into milkshakes?

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Not if it involves betraying your own allies. That's the real problem.

Whether Shepard becomes a full fledged dictator is pure assumption.

But Shepard betraying their allies and sacrficing them in some sort of horrible ritual to get peace is pure fact.

[Ageless Face]

Bocks wrote...

And none of you think it's rather tyrannical regardless of moral alignment to control a massive army of unstoppable eldtrich abominations in order to bring "peace" by stomping out conflict and making everyone live in fear of it?

Don't you think that the best ending is the ending in which everyone grows up and learns to deal with their issues without a two kilometer tall machine threatening to turn everyone into milkshakes?

And you are assuming we will let the reapers threaten anyone. Some of us controllers, how surprising it must be for you, will do what the galaxy wants to do with the reapers. If they want their help, then good. They will get it. If not, then the reapers will not intevere with the galactic soceity. Not until they're ready to. And if they are not ready, then AI Shepard will move on.

[CrutchCricket]

Bocks wrote...

And none of you think it's rather tyrannical regardless of moral alignment to control a massive army of unstoppable eldtrich abominations in order to bring "peace" by stomping out conflict and making everyone live in fear of it?

Don't you think that the best ending is the ending in which everyone grows up and learns to deal with their issues without a two kilometer tall machine threatening to turn everyone into milkshakes?

No.

What I do think is that this opinion is short-sighted, fear-mongering, naive and very, very limited.

In a word- human.

[Seival]

Bocks wrote...

...people actually picked anything aside from destroy?

People actually picked something aside from destroy even before EC release, believe me or not

[Bocks]

And yet you avoid actually killing the Reapers, bringing justice not only to the people who died in the war against the Reapers in this cycle, but all the previous cycles. It doesn't matter if the Reapers did it because they thought it was right.

And unlike you may think, my opinion is not short-sighted or fear-mongering, it's just, correct and the humane decision that brings peace to billions, if not trillions of people throughout countless millions of years. It's the choice that makes people stop living in fear of the Reapers, regardless of wether or not you intend harm through their use. Using the Reapers to help rebuild is completely wrong, using them at all -even beneficially- is incorrect. The Galaxy has to learn to develop and improve without the Reapers. It has to abandon their existance for it to truly thrive and to understand the lessons learned in the war.

tl;dr: You can sugarcoat it, but it's objectively morally wrong.

[CrutchCricket]

Bocks wrote...

And yet you avoid actually killing the Reapers, bringing justice not only to the people who died in the war against the Reapers in this cycle, but all the previous cycles. It doesn't matter if the Reapers did it because they thought it was right.

And unlike you may think, my opinion is not short-sighted or fear-mongering, it's just, correct and the humane decision that brings peace to billions, if not trillions of people throughout countless millions of years. It's the choice that makes people stop living in fear of the Reapers, regardless of wether or not you intend harm through their use. Using the Reapers to help rebuild is completely wrong, using them at all -even beneficially- is incorrect. The Galaxy has to learn to develop and improve without the Reapers. It has to abandon their existance for it to truly thrive and to understand the lessons learned in the war.

tl;dr: You can sugarcoat it, but it's objectively morally wrong.

Spoken like a true zealot.

Peace is a lie.

We're done here.

[CroGamer002]

You didn't even tried, Bocks.


Also, what you're trying to do is not justice, but revenge.

[MisterJB]

Bocks wrote...
 objectively morally

These two terms are contradictory.
All morality is subjective.

[Bill Casey]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Not if it involves betraying your own allies. That's the real problem.

Whether Shepard becomes a full fledged dictator is pure assumption.

But Shepard betraying their allies and sacrficing them in some sort of horrible ritual to get peace is pure fact.

Destroy is the only option where he doesn't betray them...

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Bill Casey wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Not if it involves betraying your own allies. That's the real problem.

Whether Shepard becomes a full fledged dictator is pure assumption.

But Shepard betraying their allies and sacrficing them in some sort of horrible ritual to get peace is pure fact.

Destroy is the only option where he doesn't betray them...

If it helps you sleep better at night, you keep telling yourself that.

Modifié par Ranger Jack Walker, 22 juillet 2012 - 10:13 .

[Ageless Face]

Bocks wrote...

And yet you avoid actually killing the Reapers, bringing justice not only to the people who died in the war against the Reapers in this cycle, but all the previous cycles. It doesn't matter if the Reapers did it because they thought it was right.

And unlike you may think, my opinion is not short-sighted or fear-mongering, it's just, correct and the humane decision that brings peace to billions, if not trillions of people throughout countless millions of years. It's the choice that makes people stop living in fear of the Reapers, regardless of wether or not you intend harm through their use. Using the Reapers to help rebuild is completely wrong, using them at all -even beneficially- is incorrect. The Galaxy has to learn to develop and improve without the Reapers. It has to abandon their existance for it to truly thrive and to understand the lessons learned in the war.

tl;dr: You can sugarcoat it, but it's objectively morally wrong.

Lessons can't be learned from wars even if your enemy is no longer your enemy?
Why using a weapon that your enemy once used is wrong?
And does justice to one group allows unjust for another, even when you can choose differently?

[Bill Casey]

HagarIshay wrote...

And you are assuming we will let the reapers threaten anyone. Some of us controllers, how surprising it must be for you, will do what the galaxy wants to do with the reapers. If they want their help, then good. They will get it. If not, then the reapers will not intevere with the galactic soceity. Not until they're ready to. And if they are not ready, then AI Shepard will move on.

You do know you can't do anything, right?
You rewrote it and you're dead now...

It's "based on" you...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 juillet 2012 - 10:30 .

[jtav]

If I may, it seems the real problem morally is that you're giving one entity a lot of power--an entity with a tenuous grasp on emotion--with no checks. Paragon Control might not be so bad, but you're trusting that its code will never develop errors or lead to a faulty conclusion. Given your predecessor, I'm not sure that's wise. It makes Control interesting, though.

[CrutchCricket]

Bill Casey wrote...

You do know you can't do anything, right?
You rewrote it and you're dead now...

It's "based on" you...

As dead as the you from a year or so ago. Pity I liked that guy better.

[CrutchCricket]

jtav wrote...

If I may, it seems the real problem morally is that you're giving one entity a lot of power--an entity with a tenuous grasp on emotion--with no checks. Paragon Control might not be so bad, but you're trusting that its code will never develop errors or lead to a faulty conclusion. Given your predecessor, I'm not sure that's wise. It makes Control interesting, though.

Funny, as it's emotion that crosses morality more often than not.

But why people insist on applying human standards to this entity still eludes me.

[jtav]

Because I am not a moral relativist. Some things are objectively good or evil. And there are a few phrases in the description that are worrying. Control's outcome hinges on the continuing goodness and sanity of one entity. I wouldn't give a human that kind of power, let alone an AI.

[estebanus]

CrutchCricket wrote...

jtav wrote...

If I may, it seems the real problem morally is that you're giving one entity a lot of power--an entity with a tenuous grasp on emotion--with no checks. Paragon Control might not be so bad, but you're trusting that its code will never develop errors or lead to a faulty conclusion. Given your predecessor, I'm not sure that's wise. It makes Control interesting, though.

Funny, as it's emotion that crosses morality more often than not.

But why people insist on applying human standards to this entity still eludes me.

Because the decision to make this entity was made by a human?

[estebanus]

jtav wrote...

Because I am not a moral relativist. Some things are objectively good or evil. And there are a few phrases in the description that are worrying. Control's outcome hinges on the continuing goodness and sanity of one entity. I wouldn't give a human that kind of power, let alone an AI.

We all saw what happened with HAL...

[CrutchCricket]

jtav wrote...

Because I am not a moral relativist. Some things are objectively good or evil. And there are a few phrases in the description that are worrying. Control's outcome hinges on the continuing goodness and sanity of one entity. I wouldn't give a human that kind of power, let alone an AI.

Good for you. (Completely disagree on "objective morality" but don't care to debate it.)

Except it's not human. Or "just an AI".

It's a higher intelligence beyond our abilities to comprehend. Organic morality is even more insignificant to it than organics themselves.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 22 juillet 2012 - 11:10 .