201 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Goose]

You can disguise eternal slaveship as "put
them in jail" if it makes you feel better

Sorry, if that annoys you, but can you be more specific? English is not my native language, so I may lose some meaning.

As far as I get, slavery means that somebody has no rights and is being exploited regardless of his consent. While my definition of Control is involves Reapers having no rights, but its most certainly doesn't involve any kind of exploitation.

The Reapers have
lived billions of years, and will live billions
of years more. They can wait.

How long Catalyst's Control last?
And most certainly consequences doesn't have to do with Paragon/Renegade solutions.

[Taboo]

Joey Ramone reminded me of how much I hate Synthesis.

Roger Waters reminds me about how much I hate Control.

Andrei Tarkovsky reminds me that Destroy is bearable.

[Shallyah]

To be honest, that Geth have to be killed in Destroy ending was just something that the writers put there to give the other two choices any chance to be picked at all. There is no proof, logic or evidence that indicates that choosing to Destroy the Reapers also has to destroy the Geth.

Even then, the ending scenes don't show any Geth dying with Destroy ending, so I'm not sure what's the point. If, as some people suspect, picking Destroy with 5000+ EMS doesn't completely wipe the Geth out (it kills their bodies, but not their servers... so it'd be just matter of building new platforms) then it's a no-brainer choice.

I hate these threads because until we get the EC DLC we can't really prove anything, and can just make assumptions on how would we believe things are, with no evidence of anything.

[Norrax]

Xellith wrote...

Asuming that what you see is actually real - I see the reapers as being too large of a threat. I play full paragon. I listened to Legion and EDI all this time. They would be upset if I compromised my beliefs and THEIR beliefs by allowing the reapers to continue to exist.

I reject synthesis on behalf of Legion. "The old machines offered to give us our future. The Geth will achieve their own future". "We will achieve it ourselves. The process is as important as the result".

Least thats what I believe he would have wanted.  Synthesis is abhorant.  Control is more paragon than synthesis.  But control is still bad.  Destroy is the way. I feel it in my bones.

+1

[Han Shot First]

Lord Goose wrote...

Anderson, the most paragony of all
paragons, is the avatar for the destroy
ending. TIM, the most renegade of renegades, is
the avatar of the control ending.

Association fallacy.
Also, where is a reason why Renegade and Paragon are separated. No one is truly perfect/one-dimensional. Even shining paragon may have some black spots on him. Even cynical worn-out renegade could have some soft spots.

But it isn't association fallacy, because it is also backed up by the fact that one ending kills the Reapers while the other allows them to live.

[Shallyah]

Lord Goose wrote...

You can disguise eternal slaveship as "put them in jail" if it makes you feel better

Sorry, if that annoys you, but can you be more specific? English is not my native language, so I may lose some meaning.

As far as I get, slavery means that somebody has no rights and is being exploited regardless of his consent. While my definition of Control is involves Reapers having no rights, but its most certainly doesn't involve any kind of exploitation.

The Reapers have lived billions of years, and will live billions of years more. They can wait.

How long Catalyst's Control last?

And most certainly consequences doesn't have to do with Paragon/Renegade solutions.

And you would do what, send them back to Dark Space? Because what I hear from about every Pro-Control player is that they'd:

A) Force the Reapers to rebuild the Mass Relays/Citadel. After YOU destroyed them.
Keep them around as Galactic Police/tool for coercion, being the biggest bully of the galaxy and keeping everyone in line out of fear.
C) Order them to fly into a sun. Not even gonna comment how wrong is this one.

If that's not exploitation or outright cold blooded murder, then I don't know what it is. Almost seems that some people believe that because Control is blue colored anything they do with it is Paragon.


You're right on that the consequences do not make the original choice more or less Paragon, but negligence is a sin and being short-sighted is being negligent in a way that will kill trillions of people in the future. No self-respecting Paragon would accept that.

Some leaked scripts pointed that the Reapers were about to break the Catalyst's control over them, and that's why he needs a new solution. Not sure that's reassuring at all, if you're to become the new Catalyst.

Modifié par Shallyah, 31 mai 2012 - 12:00 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I've picked Destroy when the Geth weren't dead. Would you sacrifice a 10 million so that 20 billion could live? Remember that conversation with Garrus? That's the cold calculus of war. That's the position you're in. But there are other factors too.

And there's this: I always looked at Control and Synthesis like: I get to die, and the little ****er and his toys still exist.

So... the question is "To be or not to be? Not to be."

[Luviagelita]

I play paragon. Not fully, but at least 70%. As a pure roleplay - choose destroy. No problem with it).

[Taboo]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I've picked Destroy when the Geth weren't dead. Would you sacrifice a 10 million so that 20 billion could live? Remember that conversation with Garrus? That's the cold calculus of war. That's the position you're in. But there are other factors too.

And there's this: I always looked at Control and Synthesis like: I get to die, and the little ****er and his toys still exist.

So... the question is "To be or not to be? Not to be."

That IS the question itsn't it?

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 31 mai 2012 - 12:02 .

[Ravenmyste]

sorry to say its not destroy is paragon since you re saving almost the entire galaxy and geth are not really considered  a life/race, there ai they can be recreated or turned off so thus destroy is paragon, renegade is control and synth is a escape between the 2

Modifié par Ravenmyste, 31 mai 2012 - 12:10 .

[Ravenmyste]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I've picked Destroy when the Geth weren't dead. Would you sacrifice a 10 million so that 20 billion could live? Remember that conversation with Garrus? That's the cold calculus of war. That's the position you're in. But there are other factors too.

And there's this: I always looked at Control and Synthesis like: I get to die, and the little ****er and his toys still exist.

So... the question is "To be or not to be? Not to be."

only thing is you take over the starchild place as the controller, he was the old controller if you picked control you become him i would guess since she will be the  con troller it would make the human more of incredibly dominate race in any wars  to come

[Shallyah]

There is also something that most people miss. When the Catalyst presents the Control option he does not say "Choose that, and you will control the Reapers".

He says "Or do you think you can Control us?". He doesn't assure you that you will be able to control them. Merely leaves up to Shepard to decide if he'll be able to while lacking any details on how does it work at all. I don't know it's like seeing a 100 meter tall wall and you need to get through it. "I will destroy it" and then a guy comes to tell you "Or do you think you can jump over it?".

There is nothing to indicate that Shepard will be able to Control the Reapersl, he is told nothing about how it works or if he is capable of it at all as a human. or for how long his control will last if he manages to do it.

And really, it's a bit arrogant and arbitrary of Shepard to put the Galaxy at stake because he feels like he could give a try to this control thing, even when it's not really clear if he can control them.

Modifié par Shallyah, 31 mai 2012 - 12:14 .

[Lord Goose]

To be honest, that Geth have to be killed
in Destroy ending was just something
that the writers put there to give the
other two choices any chance to be picked
at all.

I agree. No, seriosly, what's the main reason why I consider ending to be crappy. They failed to induce drama in a fair way, so they made the geth sacrificial goats. Annoying.

But it sort of logical. If Crucible fires synthetic-destroying beam, synthetics should die.

backed up by the fact that one
ending kills the Reapers while the other
allows them to live.

If Shepard's goal is to protect the galaxy from them, there is nothing wrong with it. Killing the Reapers was mean to achieve this goal, not the goal itself.

And you would do what, send them back
to Dark Space?

Yeup. I actually never thought about using them for, well, anything. Its because I'm not exactly sure what are they. For me they always were force of nature rather than livings beings, but in any case its better to leave them in outer space. If they're force of nature no one should be playing with it, if they're not it is unethical.

No self-respecting Paragon would accept that.

Please. My Shepard set rachni queen free, just because genocide is not an option for him. And that move sounded much more dangerous in game.

Remember that conversation with Garrus?

Funny. He actually sort of encouraged me to Control. Well, he was joking that after Shepard made peace between turians and krogan, geth and quarians, all he had to do is to pacify the Reapers.

[Vigilant111]

OP, paragon is not about ALL can be saved, remember the medical supply quest with Dr Chakwas and what's his name turian, the original deal was an exchange of supplies but my paragon Shepard just gave him the supplies in exchange of good faith...I spared Kaidan from killing Udina whom made him a spectre, that was taken as a renegade interrupt even though the intention was paragon; encouraging Vega to join N7 is viewed as paragon, yet somehow respecting his own opinion becomes renegade??? Upholding Anderson's dying wish to destroy the reapers shows conviction, loyalty and faith, and that is also renegade???

My point is, not everything is that black and white

Modifié par Vigilant111, 31 mai 2012 - 12:19 .

[Shallyah]

I let the Rachni Queen go as well. And cured the Genophage. Both moves probably risky or dangerous, but both Rachni and Krogan have already been defeated once, and both promised to keep in line this time.

The Reapers is not something you can just "beat again". I'm not saying destroying them is the true Paragon choice, but definitely the one that has potential to save most lives in the long run. There is really no Paragon option in the ending, no matter in what color they're painted.

Modifié par Shallyah, 31 mai 2012 - 12:18 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Shallyah wrote...
I'm not saying destroying them is the true Paragon choice, but definitely the one that has potential to save most lives in the long run.

Nah. 

If you choose something optimistic for control you can save far more lives than destory ever will. 

[Taboo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Shallyah wrote...
I'm not saying destroying them is the true Paragon choice, but definitely the one that has potential to save most lives in the long run.

Nah. 

If you choose something optimistic for control you can save far more lives than destory ever will. 

By violating the rights of others.

[Han Shot First]

Lord Goose wrote...


If Shepard's goal is to protect the galaxy from them, there is nothing wrong with it. Killing the Reapers was mean to achieve this goal, not the goal itself.

Allowing the Reapers to live is a species of failure, because so long as they live there is no true guarantee that they'll never kill again. The only way to definitively end the Reaper threat for all time, without question, is to destroy them.

[Lord Goose]

is not about ALL can be
saved, remember the medical supply
quest with Dr Chakwas

But Paragon should have try to save as much as possible even if its risky. If where is no choice, but to make sacrifice, it must be done, but if where are choices...

I'm not saying destroying
them is the true Paragon choice, but
definitely the one that has potential to
save most lives in the long run.

Well. Isn't that the same thing that Reapers were doing? They were killing advanced species to save all organics who may have been killed if synthetics would rebel, just as one could kill geth just in case what where would be no harvest.
I agree, Reapers are powerful, but you have the Crucible and the Citadel in Control.
And, frankly, one of the major principles of Paragon is not letting fear made him act again his ideals.

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Shallyah wrote...
I'm not saying destroying them is the true Paragon choice, but definitely the one that has potential to save most lives in the long run.

Nah. 

If you choose something optimistic for control you can save far more lives than destory ever will. 

By violating the rights of others.

Whose? 

[The Night Mammoth]

Han Shot First wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...


If Shepard's goal is to protect the galaxy from them, there is nothing wrong with it. Killing the Reapers was mean to achieve this goal, not the goal itself.

Allowing the Reapers to live is a species of failure, because so long as they live there is no true guarantee that they'll never kill again. The only way to definitively end the Reaper threat for all time, without question, is to destroy them.

I achieve that with control.

Problem?

[Taboo]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Shallyah wrote...
I'm not saying destroying them is the true Paragon choice, but definitely the one that has potential to save most lives in the long run.

Nah. 

If you choose something optimistic for control you can save far more lives than destory ever will. 

By violating the rights of others.

Whose? 

The Reapers.

They to are sentient.

[Joe Del Toro]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Shallyah wrote...
I'm not saying destroying them is the true Paragon choice, but definitely the one that has potential to save most lives in the long run.

Nah. 

If you choose something optimistic for control you can save far more lives than destory ever will. 

By violating the rights of others.

Whose? 

The Reapers.

They to are sentient.

Yet you're...ok with destroying them. What?

[Vigilant111]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

Yet you're...ok with destroying them. What?

Yes, because I gotta take care of other sentients in the galaxy, if everyone is doomed, I choose to have the reapers to die first

maybe the harbingers will now be set free from any evil control and doing evil things, blessing in disguise

Modifié par Vigilant111, 31 mai 2012 - 12:36 .

[Taboo]

Joe Del Toro wrote...

Yet you're...ok with destroying them. What?

No I'm not. I wish people would understand that.

I simply believe that killing someone is preferable to enslaving them.

I make the choice based upon personal beliefs. I simply consider it the lesser of the three evils.

I'm going to talk about this tomorrow in a new thread.