381 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

wantedman dan wrote...

I don't understand why people bring ethics into their ending choice.

Each and every choice is ethically and morally reprehensible. To denigrate one on its ethical basis and not the others is nonsensical.

Given the available choices are all that you can do a decent person should chose the least of the available evils. There are plenty of threads saying why everything about the ending is bad, these ones just concentrate on why there are different levels of bad.

[wantedman dan]

Reorte wrote...

Given the available choices are all that you can do a decent person should chose the least of the available evils. There are plenty of threads saying why everything about the ending is bad, these ones just concentrate on why there are different levels of bad.

My point still stands. 

[What a Succulent Ass]

syllogi wrote...

If it were Data, I'd have some feels.  EDI can die in a million fires.

MOAR LIKE INSERT AVATAR

DAMN BUT THIS GURL IS TRIPPIN' HOW YOU GONNA B ROCKIN' A CERSEI AVATAR AND BE TALKING THIS MESS THAT IS JUST OVERKILL

SH*T, THEY SHOULD HAVE CALLED SYLLOGI THE MOTHER OF DRAGONS, BECAUSE SHE IS JUST BURNING EDI RIGHT AND LEFT

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 17 juin 2012 - 12:15 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

...Though I have to agree that the execution of EDI's personality (and design) was a complete failure. It was a bad idea from inception, and whoever thought that it was a good idea to make her a sexbot should be ashamed.

Edit:

wantedman dan wrote...

My point still stands. 

I believe the reason the arguments persist is, whilst most people will agree all the decisions are morally reprehensible, (some) proponents of synthesis make it out that it is the best choice because eugenics has an actual place outside laughing at it uproariously.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 16 juin 2012 - 11:33 .

[Shallyah]

jtav wrote...

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.

No, it's not. I destroyed the Reapers because it's the only real permanent way to get rid of the Reaper threat forever. I wasn't raging or drooling foam in anger. It was simply the only solution that guaranteed success without having to headcanon and speculate whatever I want to believe will happen in the other two endings.

2. I deliberately killed an ally.

No doubt the only real reason to ever consider taking something diferent from Destoy. But then, I look at the bigger picture. I do not think of saving my friends and their families. I think about saving the Galaxy in its eternity. I think of the thousands of races that have been mercilessly exterminated, of the thousands of races that would be extermianted in the future if I don't put a definitive end to the Reapers. And I think "It's sad, but it's only one race, that came here willing to sacrifice itself to defeat the Reapers. One race will die today honorably so that no more races will suffer the Reapers ever again." Bigger picture. I save the universe, forever. I would do it if it was humanity the sacrificed race instead of the Geth. The Galaxy deserves to be rid of the Reapers forever.

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. 

This is all mere speculation. You, and nobody, knows what happens after each ending. I speculate that everything will be fine and the Geth don't die. See what I did there?

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

Random Jerkface wrote...

...Though I have to agree that the execution of EDI's personality (and design) was a complete failure. It was a bad idea from inception, and whoever thought that it was a good idea to make her a sexbot should be ashamed.

Gotta admit, I liked her better in ME2.

[syllogi]

Random Jerkface wrote...

...Though I have to agree that the execution of EDI's personality (and design) was a complete failure. It was a bad idea from inception, and whoever thought that it was a good idea to make her a sexbot should be ashamed.

And it's completely unclear what the heck is going on in the end.  EDI appears to survive Destroy no matter what.  That may be a bug, but if it isn't, I stand by seeing it as emotionally engaging as knowing that Diana Allers would die in the Destroy ending.  Which is to say, whatev.

And Cersei would not give a fig for EDI.  EDI is no lion.

[What a Succulent Ass]

syllogi wrote...

And Cersei would not give a fig for EDI.  EDI is no lion.

I actually burst out laughing when I saw your post paired with the nonchalant avatar of one of fantasy fiction's most magnificent bastards

[AngryFrozenWater]

I too cannot opt for the destroy option.

It is mainly because it also destroys one my allies: the geth. They were attacked by the quarians before and some were converted to become hostile by the reapers at least twice (heretics and Rannoch). There is no evidence of synthetics wanting to dominate organics, but there is evidence of reapers setting up synthetics against organics. Even in Javik's cycle it appears to be so. So the problem is not the geth, it's the reapers. I am not willing to make the geth martyrs of a hypothetical cause.

Like the other options the relays are destroyed as well, so no matter what option you go for, the galactic infrastructure will be destroyed. Destruction also seems to destroy "most of the technology you rely on". This not only traps starships relying on relays, perhaps that even starves the fleet around Earth and the Citadel, it also severely damages the galactic economy. Even defeating the reapers this way will throw us back to the dark ages.

No, thanks.

I do not have a problem with destroying reapers, though. Their cyclical maniacal genocidal warfare using the most horrific scare tactics seems to be their "ascension through destruction" reproduction method and their harvesting ensures that they stay on top of the food chain.

[KingZayd]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...
Sounds like you're just starting the transition to technological singularity. If adding synthetics "improves" organic life, what's to stop them from replacing more and more of their organic parts with synthetics? If it's truly such an "improvement," why wouldn't they simply become completely synthetic?

That will be their choice and it is likely inevitable even without Synthesis. At least, this way, it will be a technological singularity that will benefit  us.

So a technological singularity was bad, but now it's good? You just said you wanted to save organics and this would eliminate all organic life.

Apparently it's okay if you get a tech singularity that kills everything else, as long as we're the ones doing the killing.

Besides, what if the Turians do this? That way they can be omniscient robotic dinosaur people. Would you be just as happy to accept their choice to become a tech singularity that will wipe us out? Why is this more acceptable than the typical synthetic tech singularity?

[d-boy15]

Well, no one can force you to do it anyway... stick to synthesis if you like it.

although, it's not a vengence driven, it's a victory at any cost which judge from human history
we do something like that in the war.

[BatmanTurian]

I assume that those who choose control or synthesis believe that the Starkid is throwing down the white flag (well maybe forced to because of the crucible) and they believe the star child is telling the truth. Do you show mercy to an enemy when they surrender? I guess it just depends on what kind of person you are and what kind of person the enemy is.

I respect Control and Synthesis at face value, though they break the themes running through Mass Effect. I can see why people would want a peaceful resolution without more beings having to die. That is noble, though I find it naive, no offense.

As for me, I chose destroy because it seemed to be Shepard's goal all along to stop or destroy the Reapers and their minions and because everyone I had ever spoken to who was not indoctrinated wanted them gone for good. Some might twist the semantics and say that control and synthesis effectively do that, but as others have said in this same thread, destroy takes the Reapers out of the equation forever and it means I wouldn't have to negotiate with super-intelligent, cybernetic, space-ship-size beings for my place in the galaxy. It just seems to me that it is only fitting that their millions-of-years tyrannical reign of terror and cruelty should come to a complete end rather than allow them to exist after the countless galactic war crimes they have committed.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 juin 2012 - 03:33 .

[Gold Dragon]

Tealjaker94 wrote...
So...destroy?

Yes, but not for the reason you think.

A post of mine from another thread:

As for MY take on the Endings:  I choose destroy, and typically have enough EMS to ensure Survival.

Synthesis:
My personal ethics and morals do not allow me to choose this.  Personally, I would only change someone to the extent that this implies if I had prior given consent, which is isn't given, nor can it be granted, since the Reapers would have destroyed half the galaxy well before I could obtain this.

OTOH, I can see where people would like this (Survival at any cost, friendship with the Geth).  I just can't bring myself to.

Control:
I actually DID consider this my first playthru, but with what is actually presented IN-GAME, this does not provide for a permanent solution to the Reaper Problem.  Yes, they withdraw from the field of battle, and from the Galaxy, but what's preventing Shepard from becoming "Starbrat 2.0" and resuming the Reaping Process later?

Again, I can see where some would like this choice would be appealing to some (Cerberus enthusiasts who think that TIM had the right idea being one example), but As it stands, with an apparently temporary solution, And me wanting a permanent solution...

With the above, all that's left is Destroy, or do nothing.  Doing nothing doesn't save anyone, so is even LESS an option than Synthesis.

Spock:  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

The Many:  All the lives of the Galaxy, present and future.

The Few:  the remaining Geth.

The One:  Shepard.

And this:

Garrus: "Ruthless Calculus:  10 Billion over here die so that 20 Billion over here can live."
Shepard: "If we reduce this war to Mathematics, we're no better than the Reapers".

With this, I can see how some do not believe that Destroy is a viable option, I just don't agree with them.

Modifié par A Golden Dragon, 17 juin 2012 - 04:10 .

[ThinkIntegral]

Hey Golden Dragon, out of curiosity, were there ever a circumstance that allowed me to sacrifice your life for you so that many can live, I take it you'll let me do it?

[Arondell]

Reorte wrote...
Who knows? There must be some changes if it's going to do what Starbrat claims it'll do (even then it's very far-fetched to think that there any changes that could achieve that). Even if you can somehow ignore the ethical and space magic problems there's no sensible explanation as to why it'll stop the Reapers from trying to kill everyone.

I would not characterize choosing synthesis as ignoring the ethical issues it brings up.  Anymore then I would characterize choosing destroy as ignoring the ethcial issues that crop up there.  That being said I do wonder how palatable destroy would be in general if it was the Human races head on the chopping block rather then the Geth.

Edit : Its obvious that the writer in order to prevent an overwhelming majority of people from picking destroy had to put something into that choice that made it have a perceived downside.  Something that would make some people hesitate to do so but not most.  Killing off some *other* race for the greater good more or less accomplishes this.

Modifié par Arondell, 17 juin 2012 - 06:56 .

[shepard1038]

The reapers don't deserve mercy. They have killed trillions and if they are not stopped they will kill trillions more. Have they ever shown mercy? Its them or us.

Modifié par shepard1038, 17 juin 2012 - 06:54 .

[jtav]

Except we see them stopping in the other two endings. Either Shepard makes them leave or they leave on their own after getting hit with the beam. And they stay gone. Their controller is either obliterated or replaced. Killing them is no longer a matter of necessity. And no one ever deserves mercy.

[Erield]

jtav wrote...

Except we see them stopping in the other two endings. Either Shepard makes them leave or they leave on their own after getting hit with the beam. And they stay gone. Their controller is either obliterated or replaced. Killing them is no longer a matter of necessity. And no one ever deserves mercy.

I'm...I'm really confused.  I had to go back and read your OP, to make sure I was remembering what I remember correctly.  You seem to be saying that you people go, who arguably deserve death, because that's what your moral/religious code demands--but those same people you let go don't deserve mercy?  That's--wow. 

Anyway, on-topic: 
There's not enough information about the endings to say which is more or less morally wrong than the other.  They're all open to interpretation and speculation, and irrefutable head-canon.  If I were to say that Shepard is only able to give one command to the Reapers in Control before he dies, and then after they've completed that command they can do whatever they want (and coincidentally they want to kill all humans, asari, and krogan..but not turian or quarian) then is it still the morally right decision?

For you, the way that you envision Control happening, it's the right choice.  That's fine.  I find the degree of slavery inherent in the implications of Control to be reprehsensible; perhaps it would be better for me to do that and kill them all rather than kill my friends and allies, though.  Just because it may be "better" to do it doesn't make it "right" or "good," though.  And, with that, we're back at the problem all the endings share.

[jtav]

No, by definition, no one ever deserves mercy. Mercy is "the law says you deserve death but I'm only going to give you life." It's giving them less punishment. Telling Helena walk away rather than arrest her. Does she deserve that? Nope. I did it anyway.

[Jamie9]

Erield wrote...

jtav wrote...

Except we see them stopping in the other two endings. Either Shepard makes them leave or they leave on their own after getting hit with the beam. And they stay gone. Their controller is either obliterated or replaced. Killing them is no longer a matter of necessity. And no one ever deserves mercy.

I'm...I'm really confused.  I had to go back and read your OP, to make sure I was remembering what I remember correctly.  You seem to be saying that you people go, who arguably deserve death, because that's what your moral/religious code demands--but those same people you let go don't deserve mercy?  That's--wow. 

Anyway, on-topic: 
There's not enough information about the endings to say which is more or less morally wrong than the other.  They're all open to interpretation and speculation, and irrefutable head-canon.  If I were to say that Shepard is only able to give one command to the Reapers in Control before he dies, and then after they've completed that command they can do whatever they want (and coincidentally they want to kill all humans, asari, and krogan..but not turian or quarian) then is it still the morally right decision?

For you, the way that you envision Control happening, it's the right choice.  That's fine.  I find the degree of slavery inherent in the implications of Control to be reprehsensible; perhaps it would be better for me to do that and kill them all rather than kill my friends and allies, though.  Just because it may be "better" to do it doesn't make it "right" or "good," though.  And, with that, we're back at the problem all the endings share.

The problem with Control is we don't know what the Reapers are. Are they glorified AI? Sentient beings? Controlled by the Catalyst? Capable of being saved? Gone forever?

We simply don't know what they are and how they work. In ME2, we thought we'd figured it out with the Human Reaper, but it seems like ME3 overwrote a lot of it.

I rewrote the Geth in ME2. I had the choice: destroy all 10 million-ish of them, or rewrite them, giving them a chance of survival. Kill 10 million Geth or kill nobody? Seemed like an easy choice. But back then, the Geth weren't fully sentient. It was basically a simple math error, that could be corrected.

Are the Reapers sentient? We really need to know this to be able to make an ethical decision.

Modifié par Jamie9, 17 juin 2012 - 01:53 .

[ArchDuck]

If you are looking for an ethical end game choice you will have to look somewhere else than ME3.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

shepard1038 wrote...

The reapers don't deserve mercy. They have killed trillions and if they are not stopped they will kill trillions more. Have they ever shown mercy? Its them or us.

^^^^^^^^^This, Eternally^^^^^^^^^

There is no molly-coddling these sociopaths.They're done. Finito. The end.

[Iakus]

ArchDuck wrote...

If you are looking for an ethical end game choice you will have to look somewhere else than ME3.

Sadly, this.

All the endings are terrible in their own, special way.

We dont' argue over which ending is "best" we argue over which one is "least bad"

[Porenferser]

I can't choose Destroy either, because I just wiped out the Quarians so the poor Geth can finally live in peace.
Chosing Destroy would totally blow that descision up.
Destroy isn't as bad as Synthesis, but still not something I could bring myself to do.

[Taboo]

The Geth are dead in my playthrough.

Straight shot to the finish, or pipe rather, for me.