685 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Goose]

And what was wrong with the harvest simply being for reproduction.

Originally, Reapers goal was to prevent dark matter of expanding and destroying the Universe. Do you remember Tali's recruitment mission? The sun was aging much faster than it should because of Dark Matter.

Humans were perfect specimen to create Reaper smart and powerful enough to solve that problem. Remember that Mordin said about humans having unique DNA? And the whole rant about how humanity is superior to other species?

But where would be no choice at all in that case, because final options were:


1) Kill the Reapers, putting faith into organics, who may find solution to the Dark Matter problem.
2) Allow Reapers to harvest humanity and create super-reaper.

As you can see, that ending would have much less plotholes and was sort of foreshadowed... And even IT would work much better. But it's definitely had no choice AT ALL.

[Hawk227]

Ieldra2 wrote...

No. The Catalyst's moral standards are not human. No *human* in their right mind could defend that, but the Catalyst is not human. ME2 actually makes that argument when you talk about rewriting the heretics. Also, please not that for the Catalyst, it's not genocide since the minds of the Reaperized species still exist.

Not all victims are ascended. In fact, most aren't ascended. There's reason to believe (EDI says something) that the Protheans were never made into a Reaper. That's an entire cycle fallen to genocide. Many of the planets show signs of being demolished by aerial bombardment. Even if those ascended aren't genocided, genocide has still occurred on a massive scale.

EDIT: Also, what wright1978 said.

Modifié par Hawk227, 02 juin 2012 - 08:35 .

[Ieldra]

o Ventus wrote...
So you're indirectly admitting that the ending failed its literary purpose then.

Yes. I'm trying to make sense of it, but it's all too often a matter of fighting the nonsense the writers have presented us with. As opposed to what it might seem, I am not "defending the ending". I am trying to save the story for myself. What I *am* defending is the idea that every choice is viable depending on the way you interpret the little information we've got and depending on your personal ideology, and that no one has the right to claim my choice is "objectively wrong".

@Hawk277:
I take your point, but apparently for the Catalyst, the "minor" species are not relevant. The point stands that the Catalyst doesn't have human standards, so we can't expect it to act according to them.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juin 2012 - 08:40 .

[wright1978]

Lord Goose wrote...

And what was wrong with the harvest simply being for reproduction.

Originally, Reapers goal was to prevent dark matter of expanding and destroying the Universe. Do you remember Tali's recruitment mission? The sun was aging much faster than it should because of Dark Matter.

Humans were perfect specimen to create Reaper smart and powerful enough to solve that problem. Remember that Mordin said about humans having unique DNA? And the whole rant about how humanity is superior to other species?

But where would be no choice at all in that case, because final options were:


1) Kill the Reapers, putting faith into organics, who may find solution to the Dark Matter problem.
2) Allow Reapers to harvest humanity and create super-reaper.

As you can see, that ending would have much less plotholes and was sort of foreshadowed... And even IT would work much better. But it's definitely had no choice AT ALL.

It would have had 2 choices, the same as Mass Effect 2. One paragon, one  renegade. You could have hung other differences off this as happened in ME2 regarding which squaddies survived and whether crew surived.

Modifié par wright1978, 02 juin 2012 - 08:39 .

[Jenonax]

Lord Goose wrote...

And what was wrong with the harvest simply being for reproduction.

Originally, Reapers goal was to prevent dark matter of expanding and destroying the Universe. Do you remember Tali's recruitment mission? The sun was aging much faster than it should because of Dark Matter.

Humans were perfect specimen to create Reaper smart and powerful enough to solve that problem. Remember that Mordin said about humans having unique DNA? And the whole rant about how humanity is superior to other species?

But where would be no choice at all in that case, because final options were:


1) Kill the Reapers, putting faith into organics, who may find solution to the Dark Matter problem.
2) Allow Reapers to harvest humanity and create super-reaper.

As you can see, that ending would have much less plotholes and was sort of foreshadowed... And even IT would work much better. But it's definitely had no choice AT ALL.

Yes I've read that, and itsnot as bad as the ending we got but still full of **** as far as I'm concerned.  How exaclty was a human reaper going to do anything to stop the spread of dark energy?

Harvesting for reproduction is simple, we all understand it.  No plotholes.  The Reapers are synthetic/organic hybrids, at some point they'll need new organic material.  Aka, us.  We don't like, they do, war ensues, we beat them, the end.  Simple.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Genocide is malice. And the reapers reproduce using genocide. Star Child has to use deception, because no one in his or her right mind can defend genocide of non-hostile races.

No. The Catalyst's moral standards are not human. No *human* in their right mind could defend that, but the Catalyst is not human. ME2 actually makes that argument when you talk about rewriting the heretics. Also, please not that for the Catalyst, it's not genocide since the minds of the Reaperized species still exist.

Shepard happens to be human. The Alliance races happen to be humane. Extermination of an entire non-hostile race is genocide, whether you like that word or not. Genocide is a crime against humanity. That's what this fight is about.

Edit: Synthesis is, as I explained earlier, not a valid option. All the options are solutions to a non-existent problem. Synthesis also has another problem: It violates the right of self-determination.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 02 juin 2012 - 08:52 .

[Lord Goose]

It would have had 2 choices, the same as Mass Effect 2. One paragon, one renegade.

Eh. Letting Reapers harvest humanity to do something which would be potentially disastsrous? Renegade is simply anti-hero, not a full blown idiot-villain.

[wright1978]

Lord Goose wrote...

It would have had 2 choices, the same as Mass Effect 2. One paragon, one renegade.

Eh. Letting Reapers harvest humanity to do something which would be potentially disastsrous? Renegade is simply anti-hero, not a full blown idiot-villain.

No renegade is practical. If you dark energy is the problem and sacrificing humans solves problem that's a practical solution. Paragon is generally do what feels emotionally right and deal with consequences down the line if needs be.

[Ieldra]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Genocide is malice. And the reapers reproduce using genocide. Star Child has to use deception, because no one in his or her right mind can defend genocide of non-hostile races.

No. The Catalyst's moral standards are not human. No *human* in their right mind could defend that, but the Catalyst is not human. ME2 actually makes that argument when you talk about rewriting the heretics. Also, please not that for the Catalyst, it's not genocide since the minds of the Reaperized species still exist.

Shepard happens to be human. The Alliance races happen to be humane. Extermination of an entire non-hostile race is genocide, whether you like that word or not. Genocide is a crime against humanity. That's what this fight is about.

I have no problem with the term. I am only saying that to judge the Catalyst because it committed genocide is inappropriately applying human standards to it. That might make the Catalyst our enemy, because of course we don't want any species to be killed, but it's no base for a moral judgment.

(Apparently, we need moral superiority in order to fight enemies who want to kill us these days. This obsession with ideology is another thing I find rather alien to my mindset)

And before you accuse me of "moral relativism", there are moral standards common to all humans (see above - note that individual self-determination in all things is *not* common to all human cultures). But I can see no reason why there should be common moral standards between humans and something like the Catalyst.

Edit: Synthesis is, as I explained earlier, not a valid option. All the options are solutions to a non-existent problem. Synthesis also has another problem: It violates the right of self-determination.

You didn't explain, you claimed. Big difference.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juin 2012 - 09:09 .

[General User]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I have no problem with the term. I am only saying that to judge the Catalyst because it committed genocide is inappropriately applying human standards to it. That might make the Catalyst our enemy, because of course we don't want any species to be killed, but it's no base for a moral judgment.

(Apparently, we need moral superiority in order to fight enemies who want to kill us these days. This obsession with ideology is another thing I find rather alien to my mindset)

And before you accuse me of "moral relativism", there are moral standards common to all humans (see above - note that individual self-determination in all things is *not* common to all human cultures). But I can see no reason why there should be common moral standards between humans and something like the Catalyst.

If the Catalyst didn't want so-called "human" moral standards applied to it then it shouldn't have let a human decide it's fate.

[Ieldra]

All I'm saying is that the statement "We can't trust the Catalyst because it's a genocidal monster" is fallacious. The Catalyst committing genocide it not evidence of malice or even indifference. Besides, how can you say "killing the geth is a regrettable necessity" on one hand and deny that the Catalyst may have equally "compelling" reasons to leave many species to die on the other. That's hypocritical.

[Subject M]

Even if synthetic-organic conflict would be statistically likely over several millennia, self chosen synthesis (cybernetics and other form of merging between organic and non organic systems) seems more likely as a scenario.

[o Ventus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

All I'm saying is that the statement "We can't trust the Catalyst because it's a genocidal monster" is fallacious. The Catalyst committing genocide it not evidence of malice or even indifference. Besides, how can you say "killing the geth is a regrettable necessity" on one hand and deny that the Catalyst may have equally "compelling" reasons to leave many species to die on the other. That's hypocritical.

1 species is different than the remaining 99.999999% of the galaxy.

[jtav]

I happen to believe that the Catalyst is committing genocide and that I can apply my human standard of morality because genocide is wrong always and everywhere. This, however, does not make the Catalyst a liar. I believe it's telling the truth for the simple reason that the story is screaming "this is an exposition dump." It's wrong and it's committing grave evil, but it isn't lying.

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

I happen to believe that the Catalyst is committing genocide and that I can apply my human standard of morality because genocide is wrong always and everywhere. This, however, does not make the Catalyst a liar. I believe it's telling the truth for the simple reason that the story is screaming "this is an exposition dump." It's wrong and it's committing grave evil, but it isn't lying.

I don't think anyone said it was explicitly lying, only stupid and fallacious, not to mention making astounding leaps in logic.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
Genocide is malice. And the reapers reproduce using genocide. Star Child has to use deception, because no one in his or her right mind can defend genocide of non-hostile races.

No. The Catalyst's moral standards are not human. No *human* in their right mind could defend that, but the Catalyst is not human. ME2 actually makes that argument when you talk about rewriting the heretics. Also, please not that for the Catalyst, it's not genocide since the minds of the Reaperized species still exist.

Shepard happens to be human. The Alliance races happen to be humane. Extermination of an entire non-hostile race is genocide, whether you like that word or not. Genocide is a crime against humanity. That's what this fight is about.

I have no problem with the term. I am only saying that to judge the Catalyst because it committed genocide is inappropriately applying human standards to it. That might make the Catalyst our enemy, because of course we don't want any species to be killed, but it's no base for a moral judgment.

(Apparently, we need moral superiority in order to fight enemies who want to kill us these days. This obsession with ideology is another thing I find rather alien to my mindset)

And before you accuse me of "moral relativism", there are moral standards common to all humans (see above - note that individual self-determination in all things is *not* common to all human cultures). But I can see no reason why there should be common moral standards between humans and something like the Catalyst.

Edit: Synthesis is, as I explained earlier, not a valid option. All the options are solutions to a non-existent problem. Synthesis also has another problem: It violates the right of self-determination.

You didn't explain, you claimed. Big difference.

If you do not have problems with the term "genocide" then you know what it means. And since "we" or other cycles are the victim of said genocide, I am really not interested in what Star Child's moral standards are.

The right of self-determination is, I hope, obvious. If not look it up on Wikipedia. Synthesis violates that right because all Shepard got was a green light from the races involved to fight the reapers. But what happens with synthesis is that those races are sent into happy lala land and lose their racial features and free will. That is a violation of that right, because nobody asked if that's what they wanted and nobody asked them if it was OK to set their "saviors" free.

Edit: My claim that the three options are solutions to a non-existent problem is explained in an earlier post.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

However, none of the options make sense, because they are solutions to a non-existent problem: the inevitable domination of synthetics over organics. In my game Rannoch proved the reapers were wrong. Yet, destruction kills the geth. Also, according to Javik, the protheans found a way to deal with their synthetics in the Metacom War. That means that, even though two consecutive cycles proved them wrong, the reapers were willing to commit genocide for no reason other than their own reproduction.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 02 juin 2012 - 10:05 .

[lillitheris]

Ieldra2 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
So you're indirectly admitting that the ending failed its literary purpose then.

Yes. I'm trying to make sense of it, but it's all too often a matter of fighting the nonsense the writers have presented us with.

You know, you’d have a lot more success and a lot less antagonists if you quit using the term Synthesis — which is the scenario that the game presents us with — and just started talking about this entirely different Technological Singularity scenario.

As an example, this thread could be changed from “Why Synthesis Makes Sense” to “Why a Technological Singularity Scenario Is Something That Could Be Plausible If the Developers Had Used It In the Game Instead Of Synthesis” to better reflect the actual argument.

[wright1978]

jtav wrote...

I happen to believe that the Catalyst is committing genocide and that I can apply my human standard of morality because genocide is wrong always and everywhere. This, however, does not make the Catalyst a liar. I believe it's telling the truth for the simple reason that the story is screaming "this is an exposition dump." It's wrong and it's committing grave evil, but it isn't lying.

Whenever some extremist murders a whole bunch of people i may believe he/she honestly believes the wackadoodle idealogical reasoning behind it. That doesn't make it fact/truth.

Modifié par wright1978, 02 juin 2012 - 09:45 .

[Taboo]

 I apply a level of moral universalism to such things. No one is "above" being responsible for two quintillion deaths.

That's genocide.

Here's the official description from the United Nations meeting of 1948:

Article One: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

Article two: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

And here are some of the characteristics:

People are divided into "us and them".

"One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases."

"The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes..."

I seem to recall the Reapers following suit with all three of those.

As defined by international law, they have commited genocide.

[Lord Goose]

People are divided into "us and them".

"Bull****. We destroy them, or they destroy us."

Well, as a law student, I wouldn't say it is wise to apply such therms to anything what is not human. Law is made by humans and for humans. It obviously hard to expand to any sentiend and inhuman being, such as Reapers. All other beings are vaguely human, but the Reapers are just different.

[Ieldra]

lillitheris wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
So you're indirectly admitting that the ending failed its literary purpose then.

Yes. I'm trying to make sense of it, but it's all too often a matter of fighting the nonsense the writers have presented us with.

You know, you’d have a lot more success and a lot less antagonists if you quit using the term Synthesis — which is the scenario that the game presents us with — and just started talking about this entirely different Technological Singularity scenario.

As an example, this thread could be changed from “Why Synthesis Makes Sense” to “Why a Technological Singularity Scenario Is Something That Could Be Plausible If the Developers Had Used It In the Game Instead Of Synthesis” to better reflect the actual argument.

Different things. The threat of the technological singularity is a possible underlying cause for the Catalyst's claim that synthetics will always destroy organics. Synthesis is a long-term solution of that problem built into the Crucible. I am usually taking the former for granted and defending the latter, but people keep coming back to the tired old "we can't trust the Catalyst" argument so I'm getting sidetracked.

Besides, I did not start this thread. The OP hasn't posted in it after the OP so I guess he just wanted to toss a grenade into the forums. With great success, I might add.

@Taboo:
You're actually applying *international law* to the actions of the Reapers? *is speechless*

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juin 2012 - 10:00 .

[Taboo]

Lord Goose wrote...

People are divided into "us and them".

"Bull****. We destroy them, or they destroy us."

Well, as a law student, I wouldn't say it is wise to apply such therms to anything what is not human. Law is made by humans and for humans. It obviously hard to expand to any sentiend and inhuman being, such as Reapers. All other beings are vaguely human, but the Reapers are just different.

That is a form of propaganda. As a law student you should know all about that.

Also, I stated moral universilism up there. They are not above anything, and neither is Shepard.

[Lord Goose]

Reapers are fictional. It is not illegal to propagate against fictional beings. And do not mix law with morality. Law regulates your actions, not your mindset.

Also, they're not above humans. They're just completely different.

[Taboo]

Lord Goose wrote...

Reapers are fictional. It is not illegal to propagate against fictional beings. And do not mix law with morality. Law regulates your actions, not your mindset.

Also, they're not above humans. They're just completely different.

From what I remember English is not your first language, so I'm going to assume you have taken what I've said literally. I stated that all beings, that is to say Salarians, Krogans and Turians are all accountable for their actions. What the Reapers have commited is genocide as according to OUR definition of the term.

I am talking about this by the way. Law does not factor into my descision to choose Destroy, my own code of personal ethics do.

[Ieldra]

@AngryFrozenWater
I should really make a list of ridiculous claims about Synthesis. It's "serving the Reapers", "makes everyone the same", "destroys free will".... Where the hell does the nonsense end? To what length will you go to hammer your propaganda into everyone's brain?

Yes, Shepard doesn't ask people if they want to be synthesized. He also doesn't ask if they want to live under the guardianship of a synthetic overlord with the mind of an ascended human (aka Control-Shepard), or if they want to live with the risk that their descendants and their complete species will be killed by post-singularity synthetics. And as I said, results matter. I am approaching this from a consequentialist viewpoint. If I can reasonably expect the results to be beneficial to the great majority, and I don't have the means to apply the decision on an individual level, I might be justified in making that decision for all. Public decision making often goes that way, even today. Also, in my interpretation the change is reversible on an individual basis. A few billion dropouts won't matter for the bigger objective.