314 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Goose]

So destroying the Reapers is not ethical?

Killing your allies if where is a choice is not ethical.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Oh, and as for the argument that we would never be fighting this war if we'd never discovered Reaper tech, that can be said of practically anything. If the synthetic omnicide occurred we also wouldn't be fighting Reapers, as we would if an asteroid wiped out all life on the planet. That's a hollow shell of a point to make.

[Jamie9]

dreman9999 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

You can use that argument on synthesis (that it's a betrayal) because it's seemingly irreversible.

Reaper Tech is useful, yes, and doesn't indoctrinate if recreated. Thanix, EDI etc. as proof.

The tanix and EDI is not proof. We don't know what happen in the reverse engining of the reapers cannons to say it never happen. The tanix cannon are based on reaper tech not reaper tech themselves.
As for EDI, is actively is using the reapers codes in the war. It many be by have the tech attached to her consusness and the fact She don't want to indoctriante any one would be the reason why the normadies reaper is not incotriation anyone...Or She turned it off.

The Thanix Cannon is directly engineered from pieces of Sovereign: a Reaper. All experimental tech is risky. I'm not suggesting we suddenly make everything out of Reapers. It should be a couple of years before anything comes out of testing it. It should follow protocol just like all technology should.

Make sure it's safe before using it. If EDI can turn it off, then we're good to go. We'll just turn all the indoctrination off by recreating the data EDI uses.

[The Night Mammoth]

WYLDMAXX wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

WYLDMAXX wrote...

How would Shepard maintain control? If the crucible is destroyed would that mean that Shepard conciseness losses control of the Reapers?

What protects the syntheses space magic beam from being used again? I certain don't want random organic material being thrown into it.

I find the Destroy option a more permanent solution to the Reaper problem.

Wiping out the Krogan would be a permanent solution... permanent does not equal ethical. In fact, more often than not, permanent means unethical, as there is no way to reverse it if it's a mistake.

So destroying the Reapers is not ethical? 

Strawman!

Try again. 

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

So imagining rebuilding the galexy with reapers is not working with them?

Nope. 

[dreman9999]

Jamie9 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Sorry, when you  agreed to work with them...You submited to them.

The Catalyst submits to Shepard. He yields his power to Shepard. Especially in the control ending.

[color=rgb(51, 51, 51)"> Submit: ]give[/color] over or yield to the power or authority of another.

Then tell me what the vague statement"You will die. You will control us but lose everything you have" means.

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So imagining rebuilding the galexy with reapers is not working with them?

Nope. 

Yes it is.

[Baa Baa]

darkchief10 wrote...

frylock23 wrote...

It's not the Reapers' tech I necessarily despise. It's the Reapers, and if destroying their technology is the price of destroying them, it's part of the price I must pay. The other two endings have prices too high and leave the Reapers alive. Unacceptable and too risky.

which is why i hate synthesis and will never choose that bag of fail...
but i still think control  is a very viable solution, i was mads my renegade couldn't side with cerberus but oh well

This.
I think control is a good option. I just don't like how BioWare set it up so you have to choose it RIGHT after you just killed or convinced TIM to kill himself. It's kind of assholish. But as a renegade it works

Modifié par Baa Baa, 30 mai 2012 - 07:41 .

[Silpheed58]

I maintain that anyone liking the Blue and Green endings are grasping for the happiest ending they can try to get given how bad the end is, not saying this is bad or you're wrong(although I disagree and hate blue/green).

[dreman9999]

Jamie9 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

You can use that argument on synthesis (that it's a betrayal) because it's seemingly irreversible.

Reaper Tech is useful, yes, and doesn't indoctrinate if recreated. Thanix, EDI etc. as proof.

The tanix and EDI is not proof. We don't know what happen in the reverse engining of the reapers cannons to say it never happen. The tanix cannon are based on reaper tech not reaper tech themselves.
As for EDI, is actively is using the reapers codes in the war. It many be by have the tech attached to her consusness and the fact She don't want to indoctriante any one would be the reason why the normadies reaper is not incotriation anyone...Or She turned it off.

The Thanix Cannon is directly engineered from pieces of Sovereign: a Reaper. All experimental tech is risky. I'm not suggesting we suddenly make everything out of Reapers. It should be a couple of years before anything comes out of testing it. It should follow protocol just like all technology should.

Make sure it's safe before using it. If EDI can turn it off, then we're good to go. We'll just turn all the indoctrination off by recreating the data EDI uses.

The tanix conno is reversed enginered. That what it stated in the codex...That what definion we are using. What you can get from reaper tech is not risky...But if you drectly use reaper tech, then it's risky.
Also, note that EDI would turn the normadies core indortination feilds off because she is directly connected to it...Unlike other reaper tech..

Modifié par dreman9999, 30 mai 2012 - 07:42 .

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So imagining rebuilding the galexy with reapers is not working with them?

Nope. 

Yes it is.

Nope. 

I'm not working with the Reapers. 

They're working for me, they do not have a say, it is not a period of voluntary collaboration, they are but tools. 

[Lord Goose]

"You will die. You will control us but lose everything you have" means.

What the Shepard would be controlling him and the Reapers (and probably Citadel), but he will not be able to be human again?

[Jamie9]

WYLDMAXX wrote...
So destroying the Reapers is not ethical? 

Sorry. This isn't what I meant. I can see how you thought that from my post though.

We don't actually know how the Reapers work because terribly vague writing. Perhaps the minds of the races are in there somewhere. Harbinger DID want Shepard alive in ME2, what for? Perhaps to "ascend" him/her.

Destroy kills the Geth, which is unethical. Destroy kills everyone on the Citadel (probably, Twitter says otherwise, but Twitter is not canon - if this is included in the Extended Cut then that will change). Destroy destroys the Mass Relays.

If we were given explicit evidence that the minds of past species were still in Reapers then I'd say it was unethical to destroy them. But we aren't. So it isn't. Destroy the Reapers, yes, but the cost is too high.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So imagining rebuilding the galexy with reapers is not working with them?

Nope. 

Yes it is.

There's a difference between using the Reapers to rebuild the galaxy and rebuilding the galaxy alongside them. I find it hard to believe you failde to make that distinction.

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So imagining rebuilding the galexy with reapers is not working with them?

Nope. 

Yes it is.

Nope. 

I'm not working with the Reapers. 

They're working for me, they do not have a say, it is not a period of voluntary collaboration, they are but tools. 

You can still work with your tools.

[dreman9999]

Lord Goose wrote...

"You will die. You will control us but lose everything you have" means.

What the Shepard would be controlling him and the Reapers (and probably Citadel), but he will not be able to be human again?

Note how this is a vague statement and it can mean any thing...Try agein...

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
You can still work with your tools.

Does my f*cking screwdirver have a say about where and how I use it? 

No.

It is a tool, it has no say, I'm using it, not working with it. 

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So imagining rebuilding the galexy with reapers is not working with them?

Nope. 

Yes it is.

Nope. 

I'm not working with the Reapers. 

They're working for me, they do not have a say, it is not a period of voluntary collaboration, they are but tools. 

You can still work with your tools.

Now you're just arguing semantics.

[dreman9999]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So imagining rebuilding the galexy with reapers is not working with them?

Nope. 

Yes it is.

There's a difference between using the Reapers to rebuild the galaxy and rebuilding the galaxy alongside them. I find it hard to believe you failde to make that distinction.

it would be the same thing.

[Jamie9]

dreman9999 wrote...

Then tell me what the vague statement"You will die. You will control us but lose everything you have" means.

It means that your physical body dies. You lose the ability to enact with your old life completely. No more friends or Love Interest for you. Instead, you control the Reapers. So, effectively, Shepard's old life is "dead".

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You can still work with your tools.

Does my f*cking screwdirver have a say about where and how I use it? 

No.

It is a tool, it has no say, I'm using it, not working with it. 

But reapers do have wills....

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

Note how this is a vague statement and it can mean any thing...Try agein...

What the f*ck are you on about?

You say it's vague, that it's open to interpretation, and when someone does that you tell them to 'try again'.

His way of looking at it is perfectly valid. 

[Lord Goose]

Note how this is a vague statement and it can mean any thing...Try agein...

If we were playing pure fantasy game, it would be just ascending to the higher plane of existence. But in that case, I would assume what Shepard would be Catalyst (hence, what's why Citadel is merely closing instead of blowing up).

[Jamie9]

dreman9999 wrote...

it would be the same thing.

Comparison: The Geth being controlled to do what the Reapers tell them

OR

The Geth choosing to fight alongside the Reapers.

The difference is huge.

[dreman9999]

Jamie9 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Then tell me what the vague statement"You will die. You will control us but lose everything you have" means.

It means that your physical body dies. You lose the ability to enact with your old life completely. No more friends or Love Interest for you. Instead, you control the Reapers. So, effectively, Shepard's old life is "dead".

Note that this is a vague statment and can mean anything...Try agein...