381 réponses à ce sujet

[jtav]

I have been told repeatedly that I am fascist, insane, a monster, and not a true fan for not choosing Destroy. The truth is, when attempting to make a decision from anything like my RL morals, I can’t ethically choose Destroy.

1. It is vengeance driven. Destroy-ers say I should kill the Reapers because “they deserve it.” Well, they are under control of the Catalyst the same way the indoctrinated are under control of the Reapers. The fact that Shepard can make them fly off in Control means that killing them is not necessary to ensure galactic stability or the survival of life. I’ve let some absolute weasels that I desperately wanted to kill go because of that. In my religious tradition, the death penalty is only to be employed if there is no other way to contain the criminal. Unfortunately for my temper, Reapers are included. And if they are indoctrinated, it becomes equivalent to executing the insane. Unlike previous encounters with the indoctrinated, this can end in a way other than death. The risk of Shepard losing control is there, as is the risk of the Reapers going nuts in Synthesis. But it is better to try the option that can save lives than certainly directly kill innocents. Also, the rachni queen, Maelon, and Balak were also gambles.
2. I deliberately killed an ally. Let’s make this as hard on me as possible and say the geth have already been wiped out. EDI still dies. People die in war, you say? EDI’s death is justified under the principle of double effect? Except there are other means to eliminate the threat that don’t result in EDI dying. Her death is not necessary and therefore not justified. And by the way, I just gave the next generation of AIs a good reason to hate organics.
3. I just trashed galactic civilization and offered nothing in return. The relays are gone. The Citadel is gone, as they are in Synthesis (Control is ambiguous, so let’s set that aside). But in Synthesis, I at least try to give organic life a leg up via upgrades. Destroy leaves them only with what they already had. Mass starvation and other ills are a direct and foreseeable consequence of my actions. Unlike any suicides, which are ultimately the responsibility of the suicider.

And, as a side note, I find any consent counterarguments spurious. If put to a vote, I’m fairly sure the rachni queen would be dead. The galaxy consented to the other two choices the moment it put its faith in the Crucible without having any idea of its function.

[Xellith]

Its not vengeance driven unless you make it that. Legion and Edi are willing to die for what they believe. I honestly think if they have to be the one to make the choice - they would have chosen destroy also.

I believe that not choosing destroy is a direct insult to EDI and the Geth. But thats just me.

Synthesis is just abhorantly disgusting.  Id rather you just choose control instead of genetically raping everyone.

Modifié par Xellith, 16 juin 2012 - 04:35 .

[Joe Del Toro]

By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

[Zardoc]

1. Destroy is the only ending in which the Reapers are actually gone forever. Both Control and Synthesis don't stop the Reapers permanently. Synthesis doesn't even attempt to.
2. The Catalyst made EDI and the geth hostages. It's his fault they died, not mine. Assuming they're dead, that is.
3. And what exactly do you give the galaxy in Control or Synthesis? And I mean what do you REALLY give them, not just make-believe speculations.

And, as a side note, I find any consent counterarguments spurious. If put to a vote, I’m fairly sure the rachni queen would be dead. The galaxy consented to the other two choices the moment it put its faith in the Crucible without having any idea of its function.

That is because they thought you'd do the right thing, and not fall for Reaper bullsh*t like Synthesis, a "solution" for a problem that doesn't exist.

Modifié par Zardoc, 16 juin 2012 - 04:50 .

[justafan]

While I agree Destroy has almost no immediately evident "positive" effects like the relays and upgrades in the other two endings, I believe its greatest asset is certainty.

It is not out of vengeance that you kill the reapers, my mission was to stop the reapers at all costs, which you can argue control and synthesis do, but they also leave a lot of doubt about security and victory.

It is impossible to fully comprehend the mind of a reaper, not even the synthetic Geth with a direct link to Sovereign could fully comprehend his mind. Therefore I can't in good conscience choose control, having no idea how the control process would work and whether my morals will directly transfer to the incomprehensible consensus of the reapers. Any failure on this part could lead to the reapers continuing their cycle, eradicating everything I have fought for.

I oppose Synthesis on moral grounds. The survival of the Geth is not worth the violation of all life's genetic code. The path to hell is paved with the best intentions. And I can't be sure that I am not fundamentally changing a person's mind and thoughts ala brainwashing, which would be worse than mass murder in my opinion. However, this is a personal view which you make clear you do not share, and it's true such a choice would carry many valid interpretations.

With this in mind, Destroy is the best option for me because it is certain that the Reapers will never threaten life again. They are dead and gone, leaving the lifeforms of the galaxy to rebuild and over the course of perhaps many generations of hard work, thrive without fear for their existence. The loss of EDI and the Geth is regrettable, but the cost of their survival threatens all life everywhere, which in my opinion is just too high a cost. This is why Destroy will always be what I choose.

Modifié par justafan, 16 juin 2012 - 05:01 .

[LadyWench]

I'm not offended by the idea that you prefer the Synthesis ending, but I disagree with your stance and justifications. I respectfully say that I feel about the Destroy option the way you do about Synthesis--that when I examine the moral implications, it seems like the only just and safe option. I feel that when the Catalyst tells me the organic/synthetic conflict is inevitable, it's wrong. Why else would the rest of the series be about diversity=good and building relationships with the Geth and EDI? It was never about revenge for me (I also saved the Rachni queen both times).

I don't care about what the majority of the fictional galaxy would choose. As the game makes very clear, it is all about Shep's choice, not a galactic democracy on what flavor of death they would like to receive and/or impart. I would argue that, if you polled humans, most would probably NOT want to risk becoming Borg.

Thanks.

[KingZayd]

Destroying the Reapers isn't about vengeance, it's about safety. We can't beat them without a Crucible.

[lillitheris]

I liked Destroy because I chose not to kill EDI, the geth, other synthetics, or destroy the relays.

[Samtheman63]

EDI can't be killed as it is never alive, it will be destroyed.

If that upsets you, build another one

[tekkaman fear]

Hopes OP is never the spear of a galactic resistance war.

[WorldOverlord]

If you approach the cluster**** of an ending we got ethically, the best option would be for Shepard to blow his own brains out, or simply walk away while saying "We'll make our own future, thanks." and giving StarChild the finger.
And what does it matter if Destroy is vengeance driven? The Reapers just killed maybe a third or a full half of the galactic population, hell yeah we wants us some revenge. How is killing monsters like that unethical? And how are Control and *shudder* Synthesis any better? Shep literally plays god in both, either he basically makes himself into one or he rewrites all life irreversibly (or at least I believe it would be). The two nonReaper baddies in the series (Saren and TIM) want these options, giving in would basically be saying to everyone that's died because of them (especially the one that died on Virmire) "You know how we fough (and you died)t to save the galaxy from the Reapers, well I like them now, so FU."

[wright1978]

For me Synthesis is out as an option. Personally i view Synthesis as making some pretty negative mental changes so any possible physical upgrades of tech don'tblance with that negative change. Also reapers who may very well be malovent hang about as jailkeepers ready to reap everyone if synthesis doesn't stop the creation of new AI's.

Control to me is a huge gamble. If i metagamed then yes it seems to have worked at least temporarily. Whether Shep will maintain control or maintain any sense of his original humanity is unclear. However really it is out mainly for the idea that my Sheps would never trust the catalyst in the 1st place. Only the Shep who thought he could sleep with Morinth and get away with it would choose that gamble but he's dead because that gamble didn't pay off.

Now destroy does mean killing an ally which i don't like. However it also gets rid of the reapers. The reapers i've talked to(sovereign/harbinger) didn't seem like nice individuals who were enslaved. They seemed creations that fully believed their godchild's idealogy. So i'm fine with killing them rather than risking letting crazed powerful genocidal machines go free. Also the sacrifice of the geth means that the rest of species aren't changed negatively and can try and honour their memory by building new AI's in their memory. Also it is the choice the catalyst is against and therefore as i don't trust the crazy midget and diasagre with its nutty logic that makes it the obvious choice.

[frylock23]

Vengeance was never a part of the equation. I chose destroy because it seemed the only sure option left open to me.

1. Synthesis, besides being absolutely nonsensical in every way, is a moral abomination. It also destroys every extant organic and synthetic form of life in the galaxy. That you technically don't kill anyone is mere sophistry. They aren't who or what they were; they are now "other" and alien by virtue of what you did to them. You can choose to pretend it's an upgrade and a benefit, but it was done without anyone's prior knowledge or consent and cannot be undone. It's a far bigger genocide than anything Destroy forces on you. For those reasons, it's an obvious non-starter.

2. Control suffers from the logic loop. TIM controls Shepard, but TIM cannot control the Reapers because according to Star Brat, they already control TIM. So, how am I supposed to believe Star Brat when he claims that Shepard can control the Reapers? Add to this the obvious appearance of control as the "easy" way out. Shepard dies, but no one else has to, the realys are more or less intact and the Reapers just fly away and may be yours to control forever? Call me cynical, but I hardly think it will be all that easy. Personally, this one feels too much like a trap, and for that reason, I don't choose it because I only have one choice to get it right.

That leaves me with Destroy. It sucks. I hate it, and that's why I've only finished the game twice out of all my playthroughs (way more than two). But, it accomplishes me orders - destroy the Reapers. It definitely gives me the visual clues afterward that I achieved this, and while I do destroy the relays, we will have the long-term benefit of being able to develop our own technology without leaning on the ones the Reapers left behind for us. We're back to having to forge our own way. Yes, it's harder to stand on your own, but in the end, it's more satisfying because you earned it.

[DeamonSlaz]

Grow some quads and Destroy the Reapers.

Sacrifice sucks. Destroying everything sucks. I agree. However, of the three choices, its the only choice that offers a chance of Sheppard surviving and insuring the Reaper threat is gone for good.

However, I will go as far as to say, I can't choose any of the three choices. Personally my second go through is still saved just as I got into the Citadel one last time. So I don't have to make those choices. Not because they are hard, morally challenging, etc. No because they just do not suit the game at all or its core themes. Having one or two 'bad' choices would be ok, but nope. All three have more negative then positive.

[o Ventus]

It makes me lol when people try to act like "we can sympathize with the Reapers!" when they have killed quintillions (if not more) people. They are omnicidal monsters. There's nothing to prove that they are under total control, like an indoctrinated person.

If they ARE under total control, then all the more power to me. I can kill them easier. I'm more comfortable putting down a rabid dog because it is a dangerous unknown beast, than a healthy dog just because I don't like dogs.

Modifié par o Ventus, 16 juin 2012 - 05:29 .

[Ieldra]

Joe Del Toro wrote...
By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

Don't make laugh. Synthesis sets them free - and they leave. Which indicates that they'd been controlled in some way by the Catalyst. And *that* should give you pause.

The Reapers aren't "monsters". They're the enslaved minds of countless organic species. Think about what you're killing - the living history of advanced organic life in the galaxy since the time the Reapers first appeared. If that's not abominable, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know there are counterarguments against this. But they're no better than mine. And some are worse.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juin 2012 - 05:31 .

[gosimmons]

So, you say it's not the Reaper's fault that they're being controlled, and you proceed to try to control them with someone else?

[NoSpin]

WorldOverlord wrote...

If you approach the cluster**** of an ending we got ethically, the best option would be for Shepard to blow his own brains out, or simply walk away while saying "We'll make our own future, thanks." and giving StarChild the finger.

This X100000. If this ending is to be taken at face value, the only ethical thing to do is tell the Starkid to ****off. I only believe Destroy is the best option because it has been your end goal for 3 games and it is the only option not given the thumbs up by TIM or Saren. And it seems to tick off ghost kid.

Modifié par NoSpin, 16 juin 2012 - 05:30 .

[Tealjaker94]

As far as your stance on the death penalty, I agree: it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. However, if there's one time it is absolutely necessary, it's when the murderer happens to be a race of machines far more advanced than us whose sole purpose in life is to wipe us out, and who have wiped out all advanced life in the galaxy countless times before. When life as we know it is at risk, I feel it's better to be safe than sorry.

Modifié par Tealjaker94, 16 juin 2012 - 05:32 .

[WindOverTuchanka]

I'm not a regular participant of antisynthesis threads, and I continue to choose Destroy, but...

I can kinda see the reasoning, and agree with parts of it in, well, theory.

The original thematic distribution of endings did feel like destroy was an "ax-crazy" organic purist's option, and Synthesis was a "peace" option. Too bad the actual writing and the balancing considerations have shot Synthesis in the foot, repeatedly.

It's mostly post-ending movement that has chosen Destroy as a (somewhat fitting, actually) symbol of rebellion. Well, it was Bioware writers who said that sometimes "stories write themselves", and that's the way this story has written itself into a corner.

I can just say - kudos for seeing Bio's original intention through the writing, and for having guts to defend it under fire.

[Taboo]

My choice was NOT vengeance driven. At all. I find it odd that everyone thinks that my motivations are hate driven.

I believe I have more than explained my reasoning for this.

And I'm VEHEMENTLY against the death penalty.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 16 juin 2012 - 05:33 .

[Ieldra]

gosimmons wrote...
So, you say it's not the Reaper's fault that they're being controlled, and you proceed to try to control them with someone else?

I'm just saying that I won't kill them. If I choose Control, then I also have the option to set them free if what I find in their minds makes that viable. I've made my case for "Reaper mind control" in this thread.

[KingZayd]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Joe Del Toro wrote...
By that logic, all the choices are vengeance driven because in every one of them we are led to believe the Reapers are stopped.

Don't make laugh. Synthesis sets them free - and they leave. Which indicates that they'd been controlled in some way by the Catalyst. And *that* should give you pause.

The Reapers aren't "monsters". They're the enslaved minds of countless organic species. Think about what you're killing - the living history of advanced organic life in the galaxy since the time the Reapers first appeared. If that's not abominable, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I know there are counterarguments against this. But they're no better than mine. And some are worse.

We see them leaving the battle. For all you know they're just baffled by the greenwave and are retreating until they figure it's safe.

There is no way of knowing if they're going to come back.

[Hjelsao]

None of the choices are ethically defensible. That's one of the major problems. No matter what, you are forced to commit one horrific crime or other. That said, I'll pick destroy every time. I've got alot if things to avenge

[ghost9191]

just saying but the reapers were built for one thing, and that is to harvest organic life, they were machines,, well organic/synthetic hybrid things that were tools. which destroy ends that, and if destroy targets all synthetics then why wouldn't control. and if control doesn't then why can't destroy just target reapers. in the end there is no right choice to the ending, you just need to choose the lesser of 3 evils. which i believe is destroy, the reapers were created for one thing, doesn't matter who is controlling them, you talk about destroy being wrong, how is enslaving them in turn any better?