185 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

chester013 wrote...

I also didn't have an ethical problem with destroy, ethics can vary widely from person to person.

I have a strong ethical type which includes egoism & utilitarianism. The deaths of the Reapers, EDI and the Geth benefit a greater number of individuals, which satisfies the utilitarian. The fact that I am included in the type of individual I save (organics) satisfies the egoist.

So you see, your ethical dilemma isn't something I'd sweat ove, the debate over whether "this unit has a soul" is moot in my view.

Right, so you agree with the Reapers. You believe the Reapers are behaving ethically (according to their own ethical standards, and yours) when they kill everyone and turn them into reapers, since they are doing so from the point of view of egotism and utilitariansim.

I'm just saying that anyone who believes destroy is ethical agrees with the Reapers, which you clearly do. So you should have no ethical problems with Destroy.

My secondary Shepard, Crow, who is a sociopath, completely agrees with you and shares your ethics.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 08:17 .

[Yagamoth3433]

Whether the Destroy option is ethical or not greatly depends on the ethical system you are attempting to measure it against. Virtue ethics would be an interesting question as to if it would be morally acceptable. Certainly Utilitarianism would strongly support Destroy as the ethical choice whereas Kant's categorical imperative would be another rather interesting question. Many of the more modern ethical systems would more than likely consider it morally wrong.

[grimlock122]

iakus wrote...

So, this unit doesn't have a soul?  

unless it's a ginger, yes, yes it does

[TiminatorT2000]

Anything you do to destroy the Reapers is ethical. They are a galaxy wide threat and would most likely enslave the geth otherwise.

[Pewter77]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Pewter77 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Pewter77 wrote...

Honestly though the IT wraps this up so well, and leaves the actual ending to just flat out killing the reapers if you break it. Its really awesome. IT isn't an actual ending but it allows them to fix it without changing whats already there and I'm still not completely convinced that they have condemned it. As for those saying that they will leave the series if IT is real, I hope you do because you have poor taste in good storytelling and the series would be better off without you, as a fan, helping to direct which way Bioware goes with their games in the future.

So you're saying that reducing diversity through committing genocide on an entire class of beings is preferable to reducing diversity by having different classes of beings intermingle? That's a rather monstrously xenophobic way of thinking, if you ask me. The forced nature of synthesis is horrible, but it doesn't reduce diversity any more than destroying every living synthetic in the entire universe does.

As for IT, it's equally horrifically badly written and thematically revolting, as it suggests that being a hateful xenophobe who is willing to sacrifice other races for your own advancement is the key to resisting indoctrination... something that has been specifically shown to target hateful xenophobes who are willing to sacrifice other races for their own advancement. If Saren or the Illusive man had been given the three choices before they were fully indoctrinated, both of them would have picked destroy even if it meant genociding every single race in the galaxy other than their own.

While they don't work for my main Paragon, or my Rengon, both Destroy and IT are thematically appropriate for my Dexter-meets-Zaphod-Beeblebrox-style sociopath Renegade, Crow Shepard. They're like a total perspective vortex where she learns that she was right all along: Sociopathy just makes you better than everyone else, it isn't wrong to commit genocide or murder, and more hatred and pain are always the answer. After she wakes up, she'll probably rule earth as a malevolent dictator.

Not at all, but the game doesn't say that its ok to kill an entire race and commit suicide. The kid even tries to make that option not seem very good at all because of that. Its the hard option to take but it does match with themes of the game and the choice that you have to make is written in such a way to make it very hard. On the other hand synthesis goes against you bringing everyone together however diverse they are to come and defeat a common foe whereas non-diversity killed the protheans faster and easier because they were so easy to predict.

In fact its not thematically revolting in IT to have Destroy as the right option to take, simply because of how I've outlined it. The game never says to you that its right to kill them, only that its a side effect for saving the world (according to the child). It never says they are lesser, in the case of IT you have to remember that you are in a very weakened state of mind as well. Synthesis is worse because simply it destroys diversity in the galaxy creating one type of DNA that everyone will be made from (with who knows what effects it has or what it actually does to you) not to mention its pretty lazy writing (space magic in a sci-fi setting that just doesn't have that beyond eezo). Control isn't really an option for most unless again like I said you are superman and always do things that others just can't (which makes sense in terms of the the game) but its lazy and/or not very creative writing again imo. It makes IT even better because I was tricked by the game into not wanting to destroy the reapers by the child construct and that I failed to see the clues. Also EDI has said that she is repulsed by the reapers and would want to see them dead and becomes even more dedicated to stopping them.

I'm not saying at all that genocide is right, but freeing the galaxy from something that wants to kill all organic life and possible dispose of the geth anway is way better than synthesis (which might as well be joining up with them) or control (which is trying to control something you can't even though the ending says you can its still like having someone tell you a hundred times not to press that button and you did it anyway) Its a hard choice to make, no doubt about it and if there were other options that made actually good endings it wouldn't even be a hard choice, but it is, and we have tons of plot holes that need filling with goodness hopefully in the EC which xbox players will see in about 2 hours.

By choosing it rather than picking the other endings, or instead of just walking toward one ending and stopping, letting the Reapers destroy the Citadel, you're saying that committing genocide is better than having organics become a little more like Synthetics and Synthetics becoming a little more like organics.

What the starkid thinks doesn't matter. The final choice you make is an expression of what Shepard thinks. If your Shepard picks destroy, you are saying that your Shepard believes that genocide is acceptable in this case, and that it's better to horribly genocide a peaceful race than to force synthetics to become more like organics and organics to become more like synthetics.

Shepard has three choices: hubristically believe that he can control the reapers, commit genocide, or have organics and synthetics become more similar. By picking any one of these endings, you are saying it is the least bad.

Thus if you pick destroy, you, through Shepard, are saying that sometimes genocide is acceptable. There is no way of escaping that implication, It is inherent in that choice.

The thing is what the starchild says is important to stay consistant with the themes of the series, and he does play to the fact that you do think the geth are important enough to save. Synthesis however basically says you combine with a race of synthetics, who don't even think organic life has any worth, and who knows what happens but basically become a slave.

As for if Geth have souls. Well defining souls in this sci-fi setting, which can be logically seen doesn't have any important religion that's been proven or people swarming to see Jesus's birth place or any other important religious place for another race in the galaxy, we can assume that organic life in this instance came about by chance after the big bang or w/e. This means that humans asari etc don't have souls and what defines a soul at this point is sentience and worth which the geth do have which makes the choice even harder, but the ethics is not what I'm debating I'm debating whether the game stays with the themes and the starchild's tone of voice and words do matter in this instance and he plays off the fact that you see the Geth as having a 'soul' and that they are important, which is consistant with the theme. Its the only one that can be seen as staying with the theme of the series but it then gets you to choose the other choices which makes IT even more compelling.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Pewter77 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
By choosing Destroy rather than picking the other endings, or instead of just walking toward one ending and stopping, letting the Reapers destroy the Citadel, you're saying that committing genocide is better than having organics become a little more like Synthetics and Synthetics becoming a little more like organics.

What the starkid thinks doesn't matter. The final choice you make is an expression of what Shepard thinks. If your Shepard picks destroy, you are saying that your Shepard believes that genocide is acceptable in this case, and that it's better to horribly genocide a peaceful race than to force synthetics to become more like organics and organics to become more like synthetics.

Shepard has three choices: hubristically believe that he can control the reapers, commit genocide, or have organics and synthetics become more similar. By picking any one of these endings, you are saying it is the least bad.

Thus if you pick destroy, you, through Shepard, are saying that sometimes genocide is acceptable. There is no way of escaping that implication, It is inherent in that choice.

The thing is what the starchild says is important to stay consistant with the themes of the series, and he does play to the fact that you do think the geth are important enough to save. Synthesis however basically says you combine with a race of synthetics, who don't even think organic life has any worth, and who knows what happens but basically become a slave.

As for if Geth have souls. Well defining souls in this sci-fi setting, which can be logically seen doesn't have any important religion that's been proven or people swarming to see Jesus's birth place or any other important religious place for another race in the galaxy, we can assume that organic life in this instance came about by chance after the big bang or w/e. This means that humans asari etc don't have souls and what defines a soul at this point is sentience and worth which the geth do have which makes the choice even harder, but the ethics is not what I'm debating I'm debating whether the game stays with the themes and the starchild's tone of voice and words do matter in this instance and he plays off the fact that you see the Geth as having a 'soul' and that they are important, which is consistant with the theme. Its the only one that can be seen as staying with the theme of the series but it then gets you to choose the other choices which makes IT even more compelling.

IT means that sociopaths are immune from indoctrination, as are those who irrationally hate synthetics, and those who actively enjoy genocide. According to IT, every genocidal maniac in the history of time, every bigot, every murderer would have easily resisted indoctrination, while anyone who was open-minded, tolerant, or who opposed genocide on a fundamental level would have a much harder time resisting indoctrination.

My sociopath Crow, for instance, who belives all humans are meat who she can manipulate for her own pleasure and kill if she thinks it'll be fun, passes the "test" easily. She doesn't even blink.

Again, Destroy is only in keeping with the central theme of Mass Effect if you think that the central theme of mass effect was that any atrocity, no matter how horrible, even genocide, is acceptable. If you think the theme of Mass Effect is that all morals are relative, and it's fine to do the most horrible things imaginable if you think you're doing the right thing.

This is what the Reapers believe, after all, so if you see them as the heroes of Mass Effect, destroy is the ending you want to pick. They stand for sacrificing the few (spacefaring sentients) in order to save the many (all other organics). Picking destroy endorses this worldview.

If you think that was the theme of Mass Effect, then we do have to just agree do disagree.

Many who pick synthesis feel that it fits in with the series' theme of togetherness and mutual understanding, since your crew seems completely find and not murdered or huskified after the ending. Many who pick control feel that it fits in with the theme of self-sacrifice, which they believe to be the main theme of the piece.

There are points of view from which any of the endings can be seen as thematically appropriate, they just all fall apart upon further examination.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 08:55 .

[Sylvianus]

Aaleel wrote...

I didn't have an ethical problem at all.

I made a sacrifice to definitively ensure to continuity of many other species.

This. And how the hell could you believe a ghost, a starchild ? That's just dumb. How do you know he isn't lying to you ? The logic of most people here doesn't make any sense. That' s why I can't choose control or synthesis, this is really nonsense how it was done. Shepard has a galaxy to save, the only thing he can believe is to find a way to stop the reapers.

Why he would jump into something he doesn't even know ? How do you know it isn't a trap of the reapers ? That's just dumd. The destroy ending is the only one that makes sense.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 26 juin 2012 - 08:57 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Sylvianus wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I didn't have an ethical problem at all.

I made a sacrifice to definitively ensure to continuity of many other species.

This. And how the hell could you believe a ghost, a starchild ? That's just dumb. How do you know he isn't lying to you ? The logic of most people here doesn't make any sense. That' s why I can't choose control or synthesis, this is really nonsense how it was done. Shepard has a galaxy to save, the only thing he can believe is to find a way to stop the reapers.

Why he would jump into something he doesn't even know ?

Again, genocide is preferable to the unknown. Man. I am coming up with the BEST list of things people think genocide is preferable to.

Because you aren't saving other species by committing that genocide; the endings prove that. The idea that destroy is the only way to stop the reapers is a pure delusion. And if you decide not to believe the starkid, why do you even believe the red pipe does anything at all? Why do you think "oh, obviously he told me this red pipe destroys the reapers, so I believe that without question. Only the things I don't want to believe are lies!"

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 08:59 .

[CroGamer002]

Problem.

EDI is the Normandy, not that sexbot she uses.

If that bot is down, EDI will still live without any consequence on her.

[robertm2]

im in complete support of destroy but how isnt this just getting other people to do the dirty work? sounds more cowardly than anything.

[Sylvianus]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I didn't have an ethical problem at all.

I made a sacrifice to definitively ensure to continuity of many other species.

This. And how the hell could you believe a ghost, a starchild ? That's just dumb. How do you know he isn't lying to you ? The logic of most people here doesn't make any sense. That' s why I can't choose control or synthesis, this is really nonsense how it was done. Shepard has a galaxy to save, the only thing he can believe is to find a way to stop the reapers.

Why he would jump into something he doesn't even know ?

Again, genocide is preferable to the unknown. Man. I am coming up with the BEST list of things people think genocide is preferable to.

Because you aren't saving other species by committing that genocide; the endings prove that. And if you decide not to believe the starkid, why do you even believe the red pipe does anything at all? Why do you think "oh, obviously he told me this red pipe destroys the reapers, so I believe that without question. Only the things I don't want to believe are lies!"

What's going on after your decision doesn't matter, since you don't know how your choice will affect the world. We are talking about the point of choosing the red option. You have just to choose and quickly. There's no genocide, but consequences to your decision, a sacrifice to the detriment of your will, the only solution you could see as real. To destroy the reapers.

You are just a soldier who is seeking to destroy the reapers and that's it. Given the the difficulty of the situation, I think you can understand this will. The reapers have demonstrated how they were invincible and how it was impossible to control them. The starkid told you it will commit a genocide, but why would you believe everything he says at this moment ? I mean, you saw how was the reality with the reapers, and it's really harsh, but compared to that, you believe some wise words told by a  ghost. I didn't. This is why I hate this moment, that's just dumb.  It's almost like shepard had some tea with the ghost.

I agree that the red pipe wasn't much better, because shepard still follows the orders of that kid. But, for me This is just dumb to think you can control the reapers at this moment no matter how is the ending with this option. As a human, I can't believe someone would even consider becoming a god. At least the synthesis option is mysterious..  But the galaxy is at stake, it's also dumb to choose the unknown, the luck.

And the red pipe was just more believable, you know exactly what will happen, so at least you know that the galaxy will be saved, the starkid seemed to be also against this solution. So I chose what he didn't want. But this event is still bad.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 26 juin 2012 - 09:29 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Sylvianus wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I didn't have an ethical problem at all.

I made a sacrifice to definitively ensure to continuity of many other species.

This. And how the hell could you believe a ghost, a starchild ? That's just dumb. How do you know he isn't lying to you ? The logic of most people here doesn't make any sense. That' s why I can't choose control or synthesis, this is really nonsense how it was done. Shepard has a galaxy to save, the only thing he can believe is to find a way to stop the reapers.

Why he would jump into something he doesn't even know ?

Again, genocide is preferable to the unknown. Man. I am coming up with the BEST list of things people think genocide is preferable to.

Because you aren't saving other species by committing that genocide; the endings prove that. And if you decide not to believe the starkid, why do you even believe the red pipe does anything at all? Why do you think "oh, obviously he told me this red pipe destroys the reapers, so I believe that without question. Only the things I don't want to believe are lies!"

What's going on after your decision doesn't matter, since you don't know how your choice will affect the world. We are talking about the point of choosing the red option. You have just to choose and quickly. There's no genocide, but consequences to your decision, a sacrifice to the detriment of your will, the only solution you could see as real. To destroy the reapers.

You are just a soldier who is seeking to destroy the reapers and that's it. Given the the difficulty of the situation, I think you can understand this will. The reapers have demonstrated how they were invincible and how it was impossible to control them. The starkid told you it will commit a genocide, but why would you believe everything he says at this moment ? I mean, you saw how was the reality with the reapers, and it's really harsh, but compared to that, you believe some wise words told by a  ghost. I didn't. This is why I hate this moment, that's just dumb.  It's almost like shepard had some tea with the ghost.

I agree that the red pipe wasn't much better, because shepard still follows the orders of that kid. But, for me This is just dumb to think you can control the reapers at this moment no matter how is the ending with this option. As a human, I can't believe someone would even consider becoming a god. At least the synthesis option is mysterious..  But the galaxy is at stake, it's also dumb to choose the unknown, the luck.

And the red pipe was just more believable, you know exactly what will happen, so at least you know that the galaxy will be saved, the starkid seemed to be also against this solution. So I chose what he didn't want. But this event is still bad.

I'm just asking why you choose to believe that he's telling the truth when he says 'that red pipe will destroy the Reapers," if you don't believe the rest of the stuff he says.

He could be lying. The red pipe could turn off the air conditioning in C-Sec, or it could blow up the sun, or it could do nothing at all. He could also be using reverse psychology "Oh man, Brer Shepard! Don't you blow up that red tube! Do whatever you want, but don't throw me in that briar patch... I mean shoot the red tube!" 

The kid says the red pipe will destroy the Reapers and the Geth. You believe it will destroy the Reapers. You do not believe it will destroy the Geth. Why believe one when you don't believe the other?

If you believe the red tube kills the Reapers, you should also believe it kills the Geth. The only reason you have to believe either of those things is that the starkid told you so.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I'm about to go to bed. But I thought I'd leave a few parting words before I did. One of the reasons I posted this thread was to provide a way for people to still have at least one way of enjoying what is left of the Mass Effect universe after what Hudson and Walters did to it in this final chapter. Now for the parting words.

First, I find it absolutely abhorrent that the writers would put the gamer in such a situation where they would be forced to choose between mass enslavement, galactic-wide eugenics, or genocide to end a game series, and you have to pick one of them. I don't know why they thought this was a good idea. i don't know what prompted them to think this was a "bittersweet" way of ending a game. I don't know what prompted them to think that going for mass enslavement or galactic-wide eugenics via self-sacrifice was a noble cause. They're absolutely vile and no better than genocide of a race. A sociopath can pick genocide, survive and unite with the LI and be happy, but that's not ethically acceptable.

Second, that they did this made me very angry. I've been angry for 3 months about this. Why? This series had been my favorite game series in the past 20 years, and they gave it this s*** f*** of an ending. This forum is going to be a very dark place in the next few days unless the EC works a bloody miracle. My hopes are not high.

So I say to the writers: **** you. I'm not going to play your game. I know how you scripted your game because I've played ME2 enough times. I know where to make the mistakes, and I'm going to make them, and they're not ethically incorrect from the viewpoint of the protagonist either because the protagonist doesn't know what is going to happen at certain points. The player does, but this is total meta-gaming, and that's fine. It's a method to get a desired result. However it's the only way around this cluster **** of a moral dilemma of an ending.

I live in one of the most passive-aggressive regions of the United States. We don't take direct action here like in some areas. Some areas where you want the Destroy ending will just say damn the consequences. Here, we'll work it so that the game sanitizes the choice and takes care of all that would be nastiness for us. It shifts the responsibility for the demise of the Geth and EDI off of the player and back to Hudson and Walters. I used to work for the government. I know how to pass the buck. These guys are amateurs.

This is "How To Survive The Mass Effect 3 Ending With Your Morals Intact" method. As someone (thisisme1) put it, my solution sounds like I had a strategy session with Zaeed and Jack (the new Jack). True it does. We'll throw Capt. James T. Kirk in as well. And you can play through the game series and be a big guddamn hero, and survive without the taint of genocide on your soul. That's why I posted this thread. I wanted to give you guys a way of doing that.

And with that. Have a good night, and I'll check in probably later.

[Firmijn]

"Lets deliberately kill someone and force events so that specie X will commit genocide on specie Y, and I can be no longer blamed for it"

Are you kidding me?

EDIT after rage passed:

I totally understand the need to find a guilt-free Destroy ending. But this is not the way in my opinion. Deliberately not taking action, or taking actions of wich you know in advance how they will play out is not making you innocent.
At most it makes you look innocent. And that's an entirely different thing.



Sidenote: my spellcheck is not working. As a non native english speaker I make no promisses concerning my grammar and stuff.

Modifié par Firmijn, 26 juin 2012 - 09:49 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Hey sH0tgUn jUliA,

I wanted to apologize if you thought I was putting down your approach specifically. I agree that a Shepard who somehow lost legion in ME2 could, in fact, almost ethically pick destroy. If EDI dies on the way to the beam (though I don't believe your squadmates usually die when you run for the beam, unless you have a horribly low EMS), then I'd agree that Destroy would be nearly guilt-free.

I know someone who legitimately did that on her real playthrough, and that's one of the few circumstances where I do believe it kind of works. I'm a little dodgy on the idea of deliberately engineering it...

But deliberately engineering it isn't anywhere near as questionable as outright justifying it is. That's what I'm arguing against.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 09:49 .

[KingZayd]

leaving destroy as it is would make it "almost ethically okay", if not "ethically okay" already.

Do the lives of the few outweigh the lives of the many? It's a grey area, I admit, but it's certainly not evil.

Modifié par KingZayd, 26 juin 2012 - 09:55 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KingZayd wrote...

leaving destroy as it is would make it "almost ethically okay", if not "ethically okay" already.

Do the lives of the few outweigh the lives of the many? It's a grey area, I admit, but it's certainly not evil.

This is why the Reapers say they are reaping us: to kill the few (spacefaring sentients) to save the many (all other organics).

So if you use this rationale for picking Destroy, you believe that the cycle was "ethically okay," and that the Reapers are just as heroic as Commander Shepard.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 10:00 .

[KingZayd]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

leaving destroy as it is would make it "almost ethically okay", if not "ethically okay" already.

Do the lives of the few outweigh the lives of the many? It's a grey area, I admit, but it's certainly not evil.

This is why the Reapers say they are reaping us: to kill the few (spacefaring sentients) to save the many (all other organics).

So if you use this rationale for picking Destroy, you believe that the cycle was "ethically okay," and that the Reapers are just as heroic as Commander Shepard.

except if you look at what they've done over a billion years, they have killed the vast majority, and spared a few.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KingZayd wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

leaving destroy as it is would make it "almost ethically okay", if not "ethically okay" already.

Do the lives of the few outweigh the lives of the many? It's a grey area, I admit, but it's certainly not evil.

This is why the Reapers say they are reaping us: to kill the few (spacefaring sentients) to save the many (all other organics).

So if you use this rationale for picking Destroy, you believe that the cycle was "ethically okay," and that the Reapers are just as heroic as Commander Shepard.

except if you look at what they've done over a billion years, they have killed the vast majority, and spared a few.

Incorrect. Non-spacefaring lifeforms vastly outnumber spacefaring lifeforms, just as bacteria outnumber humans billions and billions to one. So there's no way they can have killed the vast majority of organisms who ever lived, not even close. They may have killed a few trillion over the cycles, but there must be quadrillions or septillions of organic organisms that have ever lived.

Plus, they honestly believed that this was the only way to save lives. Shepard has no real reason to believe his genocide is the only way to save lives.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 10:07 .

[KingZayd]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

leaving destroy as it is would make it "almost ethically okay", if not "ethically okay" already.

Do the lives of the few outweigh the lives of the many? It's a grey area, I admit, but it's certainly not evil.

This is why the Reapers say they are reaping us: to kill the few (spacefaring sentients) to save the many (all other organics).

So if you use this rationale for picking Destroy, you believe that the cycle was "ethically okay," and that the Reapers are just as heroic as Commander Shepard.

except if you look at what they've done over a billion years, they have killed the vast majority, and spared a few.

Incorrect. Non-spacefaring lifeforms vastly outnumber spacefaring lifeforms, just as bacteria outnumber humans billions and billions to one. So there's no way they can have killed the vast majority of people who ever lived, not even close.

Plus, they honestly believed that this was the only way to save lives. Shepard has no real reason to believe his genocide is the only way to save lives.

Bacteria aren't people. The Reapers have slaughtered the vast majority of people who lived during their reaping cycle.

The Reapers are a known hazard. This synthetics wiping out ALL organic life is a purely hypothetical one. We can't beat the Reapers without a Crucible. We can only use the Crucible once. The Reapers are still around unless you pick Destroy. Everyone's life is still in danger if you pick something other than destroy.

Did they really?

[Sylvianus]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I didn't have an ethical problem at all.

I made a sacrifice to definitively ensure to continuity of many other species.

This. And how the hell could you believe a ghost, a starchild ? That's just dumb. How do you know he isn't lying to you ? The logic of most people here doesn't make any sense. That' s why I can't choose control or synthesis, this is really nonsense how it was done. Shepard has a galaxy to save, the only thing he can believe is to find a way to stop the reapers.

Why he would jump into something he doesn't even know ?

Again, genocide is preferable to the unknown. Man. I am coming up with the BEST list of things people think genocide is preferable to.

Because you aren't saving other species by committing that genocide; the endings prove that. And if you decide not to believe the starkid, why do you even believe the red pipe does anything at all? Why do you think "oh, obviously he told me this red pipe destroys the reapers, so I believe that without question. Only the things I don't want to believe are lies!"

What's going on after your decision doesn't matter, since you don't know how your choice will affect the world. We are talking about the point of choosing the red option. You have just to choose and quickly. There's no genocide, but consequences to your decision, a sacrifice to the detriment of your will, the only solution you could see as real. To destroy the reapers.

You are just a soldier who is seeking to destroy the reapers and that's it. Given the the difficulty of the situation, I think you can understand this will. The reapers have demonstrated how they were invincible and how it was impossible to control them. The starkid told you it will commit a genocide, but why would you believe everything he says at this moment ? I mean, you saw how was the reality with the reapers, and it's really harsh, but compared to that, you believe some wise words told by a  ghost. I didn't. This is why I hate this moment, that's just dumb.  It's almost like shepard had some tea with the ghost.

I agree that the red pipe wasn't much better, because shepard still follows the orders of that kid. But, for me This is just dumb to think you can control the reapers at this moment no matter how is the ending with this option. As a human, I can't believe someone would even consider becoming a god. At least the synthesis option is mysterious..  But the galaxy is at stake, it's also dumb to choose the unknown, the luck.

And the red pipe was just more believable, you know exactly what will happen, so at least you know that the galaxy will be saved, the starkid seemed to be also against this solution. So I chose what he didn't want. But this event is still bad.

I'm just asking why you choose to believe that he's telling the truth when he says 'that red pipe will destroy the Reapers," if you don't believe the rest of the stuff he says.

He could be lying. The red pipe could turn off the air conditioning in C-Sec, or it could blow up the sun, or it could do nothing at all. He could also be using reverse psychology "Oh man, Brer Shepard! Don't you blow up that red tube! Do whatever you want, but don't throw me in that briar patch... I mean shoot the red tube!" 

The kid says the red pipe will destroy the Reapers and the Geth. You believe it will destroy the Reapers. You do not believe it will destroy the Geth. Why believe one when you don't believe the other?

If you believe the red tube kills the Reapers, you should also believe it kills the Geth. The only reason you have to believe either of those things is that the starkid told you so.

That's why I say this event is bad no matter what is the decision. I had no choices.. I'm just saying that the red pipe isn't worse than any other choice without metagaming. They are all dumb because they rely only on the words of that child and your only choice is to believe everything he says, or not everything. After there are different consequences, but their meaning doesn't mean you are a monster. You had to choose, you have chosen and a new world is born.

You know, it could happen that the ghost tells you the truth somewhere, and lies at another moment trying to confuse you. He knows that you're almost at the goal and with or without him you could find a way to end it all. This is what I thought first. Like I said he seemed to be more against the red pipe. Control option seemed too tempting, and the synthesis option seemed to be a too distant prospect. I thought he was trying to seduce me against  the most difficult decision but more feasible.

To each to choose. It doesn't mean you are a monster if you decide to destroy the reapers. It doesn't mean you don't like the geths or anything else.

You choose in what you believe is right according to the situation, and there will be consequences. If you think you can be a god, then choose it, if you want to try the unknow, okay why not, if you believe that the only realistic choice is to destroy the reapers no matter how is the cost, , the only choice you believe possible and feasible ( Yes, I do not really believe in any theory that never again there will be war between synthetics and organics. ), then do it. ( Yes because I know that the reapers can be killed, but no, we don't know yet if they can be controlled, or the other choice. .)

Personally, never I will choose the control option, it is just too much, the only one who can control the reapers is you, new jesus. No one would believe that crap. My shep couldn't believe this choice. Besides, I don't remember, is it ever said why only shepard can control the reapers ?

Yes, I know, finally, you can be a god and the synthesis is successful. But choosing the option to destroy the reapers is justifiable at this moment too despite the consequences after. Even if you realize that yes, synthetics are dead at the end. But there're no wars without sacrifices and costs, especially against the reapers.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 26 juin 2012 - 10:19 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KingZayd wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

leaving destroy as it is would make it "almost ethically okay", if not "ethically okay" already.

Do the lives of the few outweigh the lives of the many? It's a grey area, I admit, but it's certainly not evil.

This is why the Reapers say they are reaping us: to kill the few (spacefaring sentients) to save the many (all other organics).

So if you use this rationale for picking Destroy, you believe that the cycle was "ethically okay," and that the Reapers are just as heroic as Commander Shepard.

except if you look at what they've done over a billion years, they have killed the vast majority, and spared a few.

Incorrect. Non-spacefaring lifeforms vastly outnumber spacefaring lifeforms, just as bacteria outnumber humans billions and billions to one. So there's no way they can have killed the vast majority of people who ever lived, not even close.

Plus, they honestly believed that this was the only way to save lives. Shepard has no real reason to believe his genocide is the only way to save lives.

Bacteria aren't people. The Reapers have slaughtered the vast majority of people who lived during their reaping cycle.

The Reapers are a known hazard. This synthetics wiping out ALL organic life is a purely hypothetical one. We can't beat the Reapers without a Crucible. We can only use the Crucible once. The Reapers are still around unless you pick Destroy. Everyone's life is still in danger if you pick something other than destroy.

Did they really?

You have exactly as much reason to believe that everyone's life is still in danger if you pick anything other than destroy as the Reapers have to believe Synthetics will wipe everyone out. Heck, you may have less reason to believe it than they do.

The Reapers kill the few hundred billion people who are alive during the couple years they come to reap, so that the trillions of people who are alive during the 50,000 year periods of rest can live. Otherwise, those people would still be in danger from synthetics.

Plus, the reapers believe that if they hadn't reaped previous cycles, no human who ever lived would ever have been born. They believe they saved the lives of every human who ever lived, and the only cost is all the humans who happen to be alive at one particular period of time: a small sacrifice to allow future sentient races to evolve, yes? The few must be sacrificed so the future is safe.

They believe this in exactly the same manner you believe that picking anything other than destroy means everyone is still in danger. They have as much (or more) evidence that they have no choice but to reap as you have that only destroy will stop the reapers: none at all.

Both of you are committing genocide because you're afraid of the unknown, and you believe the alternative is total exstinction. Welcome to the club! you're just like them now.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Sylvianus wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
I agree that the red pipe wasn't much better, because shepard still follows the orders of that kid. But, for me This is just dumb to think you can control the reapers at this moment no matter how is the ending with this option. As a human, I can't believe someone would even consider becoming a god. At least the synthesis option is mysterious..  But the galaxy is at stake, it's also dumb to choose the unknown, the luck.

And the red pipe was just more believable, you know exactly what will happen, so at least you know that the galaxy will be saved, the starkid seemed to be also against this solution. So I chose what he didn't want. But this event is still bad.

I'm just asking why you choose to believe that he's telling the truth when he says 'that red pipe will destroy the Reapers," if you don't believe the rest of the stuff he says.

He could be lying. The red pipe could turn off the air conditioning in C-Sec, or it could blow up the sun, or it could do nothing at all. He could also be using reverse psychology "Oh man, Brer Shepard! Don't you blow up that red tube! Do whatever you want, but don't throw me in that briar patch... I mean shoot the red tube!" 

The kid says the red pipe will destroy the Reapers and the Geth. You believe it will destroy the Reapers. You do not believe it will destroy the Geth. Why believe one when you don't believe the other?

If you believe the red tube kills the Reapers, you should also believe it kills the Geth. The only reason you have to believe either of those things is that the starkid told you so.

That's why I say this event is bad no matter what is the decision. I had no choices.. I'm just saying that the red pipe isn't worse than any other choice without metagaming. They are all dumb because they rely only on the words of that child and your only choice is to believe everything he says, or not everything. After there are different consequences, but their meaning doesn't mean you are a monster. You had to choose, you have chosen and a new world is born.

You know, it could happen that the ghost tells you the truth somewhere, and lies at another moment trying to confuse you. He knows that you're almost at the goal and with or without him you could find a way to end it all. This is what I thought first. Like I said he seemed to be more against the red pipe. Control option seemed too tempting, and the synthesis option seemed to be a too distant prospect. I thought he was trying to seduce me against  the most difficult decision but more feasible.

To each to choose. It doesn't mean you are a monster if you decide to destroy the reapers. It doesn't mean you don't like the geths or anything else.

You choose in what you believe is right according to the situation, and there will be consequences. If you think you can be a god, then choose it, if you want to try the unknow, okay why not, if you believe that the only realistic choice is to destroy the reapers no matter how is the cost, , the only choice you believe possible and feasible ( Yes, I do not really believe in any theory that never again there will be war between synthetics and organics. ), then do it. ( Yes because I know that the reapers can be killed, but no, we don't know yet if they can be controlled, or the other choice. .)

Personally, never I will choose the control option, it is just too much, the only one who can control the reapers is you, new jesus. No one would believe that crap. My shep couldn't believe this choice. Besides, I don't remember, is it ever said why only shepard can control the reapers ?

Yes, I know, finally, you can be a god and the synthesis is successful. But choosing the option to destroy the reapers is justifiable at this moment too despite the consequences after. Even if you realize that yes, synthetics are dead at the end. But there're no wars without sacrifices and costs, especially against the reapers.

Snipping the quote pile.

Oh no, I agree that all the choices are potentially equally bad. I believe that all three choices are thematically revolting.

I just have a very specific problem with genocide, and it troubles me when people express the idea that genocide is the right choice, the only choice, obviously the best choice.

In the best case scenario of Destroy, you probably either committed murder or genocide (unless you're playing a game where the Geth are already dead, in which case you probably just committed murder... unless EDI is dead, in which case you can happily pick Destroy with no guilt.) We'll see if the EC changes that.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 juin 2012 - 10:25 .

[kowalzcky]

Here is my opinion about the endings, and sorry in advance for my English....

First before the extended cut and making an effort trying to avoid all the plot holes, I think that they are just too unclear, I mean you can almost think what you want about them; for example I choose to believe that in the destroy ending probably EDI and the geth will agree with me that it was the best option, previous to the end EDI choose to reprogram herself(or itself) to give more value to Joker´s life than hers, and even if I killed the Geth now with the destroy option I let the door open to reconstruct them, but the lesson was learned and the cycles are broken, now all live in the galaxy is free to evolve in its own way even if this means that the same mistakes will be done again, at least we could only blame ourselves.

For the control ending, ok I assumed that Shepard will not be able to control the reapers forever and maybe he/she will help in rebuilding the galaxy, but anyways the reapers are still there, will that control last forever? I doubt it, if the darn star child was its creator and controller once without him they will probably rebel sooner or later and the cycles will restart again. Or in the worst case scenario Shepard will go crazy and even if trying to help she/he will sooner or later will become some kind of dictator due the sheer amount of power that he/she now owns.....great power high chance of corruption....I think with this ending Shepard will become some kind of "nice" dictator for the galaxy and that’s not an acceptable thing for me both possibilities in the blue ending are completely unethical to me.

Finally synthesis.....this ending simply makes no sense and makes the other ending makes even less sense, let me try to explain.

If the starchild has the power to change all live in the galaxy(or in the universe, because if synthetic live appears in other galaxy, it can come here and finish our new happy postorganic civilization "soon" and restart the organic-synthetic war again @.@) in a few hours why he/it can simply shut down the reapers without more damage to anything else!??? I like the idea that the option of restart as some kind of postbiological civilization appears in the game, it makes sense, but not this way.

If the catalyst is this powerful, why we don’t have more options? not just mind raping the reapers and transforming everything in the galaxy against their will, if it can do this magical transformation, again, why it cannot simply shut down the reapers!?? Why I cannot give to the people of the galaxy the chance to choose do I really need to force them? If I transform all the living beings of the galaxy in a semisynthetic life form I am not stopping the evolution and the appearance of new species, freezing life. All kind of live in a static and unchangeable state of existence? You not only force all the galaxy in a transformation against its will you destroy all chance of change in the future.

Another thing about the green ending is, ok right now all live is at peace, but if in the future someone creates an AI again, we have the war problem again! or from now all the AI created will be part sythetic? it just not solve the problem more or better than destroying all the current synthetic live right now! It solves it in a more unethical and doubtful way than the red ending, at least for me.

Just as they are, at least for me the red ending its already the more ethical for me; but the problem right now is that the ending are what I choose them to be; because of plot holes and broken story telling most of them make all decisions meaningless, why all mass relay have to be blow up? why is better the green ending than the rest?(I think that the idea behind the ending was that this one was the "good" option, not that "there are no good and evil" as some people say) and the questions continue on and on....

Just my final point, mysterious ending are not a good thing by its own, I have the sensation that the writer of the endings confused the idea of "mysterious endings" with the "is mysterious because is bad written" if the catalyst is a transcendent being far beyond our comprehension, why the heck we can think better solutions than it/him or whatever!? If you are not as good as Stanley Kubrick making Space Odyssey(good example for me about a mysterious ending) it’s better not to try it, you will probably look like a fool or worse like a pretentious fool. That’s what happened in this game.

And last sorry for long rant….

[KingZayd]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

leaving destroy as it is would make it "almost ethically okay", if not "ethically okay" already.

Do the lives of the few outweigh the lives of the many? It's a grey area, I admit, but it's certainly not evil.

This is why the Reapers say they are reaping us: to kill the few (spacefaring sentients) to save the many (all other organics).

So if you use this rationale for picking Destroy, you believe that the cycle was "ethically okay," and that the Reapers are just as heroic as Commander Shepard.

except if you look at what they've done over a billion years, they have killed the vast majority, and spared a few.

Incorrect. Non-spacefaring lifeforms vastly outnumber spacefaring lifeforms, just as bacteria outnumber humans billions and billions to one. So there's no way they can have killed the vast majority of people who ever lived, not even close.

Plus, they honestly believed that this was the only way to save lives. Shepard has no real reason to believe his genocide is the only way to save lives.

Bacteria aren't people. The Reapers have slaughtered the vast majority of people who lived during their reaping cycle.

The Reapers are a known hazard. This synthetics wiping out ALL organic life is a purely hypothetical one. We can't beat the Reapers without a Crucible. We can only use the Crucible once. The Reapers are still around unless you pick Destroy. Everyone's life is still in danger if you pick something other than destroy.

Did they really?

You have exactly as much reason to believe that everyone's life is still in danger if you pick anything other than destroy as the Reapers have to believe Synthetics will wipe everyone out. Heck, you may have less reason to believe it than they do.

The Reapers kill the few hundred billion people who are alive during the couple years they come to reap, so that the trillions of people who are alive during the 50,000 year periods of rest can live. Otherwise, those people would still be in danger from synthetics.

Plus, the reapers believe that if they hadn't reaped previous cycles, no human who ever lived would ever have been born. They believe they saved the lives of every human who ever lived, and the only cost is all the humans who happen to be alive at one particular period of time: a small sacrifice to allow future sentient races to evolve, yes? The few must be sacrificed so the future is safe.

They believe this in exactly the same manner you believe that picking anything other than destroy means everyone is still in danger. They have as much (or more) evidence that they have no choice but to reap as you have that only destroy will stop the reapers: none at all.

Both of you are committing genocide because you're afraid of the unknown, and you believe the alternative is total exstinction. Welcome to the club! you're just like them now.

Based on what? What their leader told you?


Erm, the advanced races are the one who can spread across the galaxy and reproduce, spreading their population among many worlds. It's the primitives who have far more limited resources. The advanced races experience a population explosion due to the abundance of resources. And then those primitives who survive? They get wiped out after they advance too. They may have been the many the first time, and the second time etc, but overall? The only ones who survive the Reapers are the ones that have remained primitive.

They're sacrificing every sentient race once they reach a certain point. No small sacrifice at all. At best, it's sacrificing the many so that that many others can come (and eventually be sacrificed too). This is certainly not the "few" being sacrificed by the "many".

We have plenty of evidence that the Reapers have been killing all those people over the last billion years. No evidence for the synthetics having done the same. It is YOU who is endangering the lives of everyone in the galaxy because you're afraid of the unknown (future of synthetics and organics). We are motivated by our fear of the known: Reapers.

Modifié par KingZayd, 26 juin 2012 - 10:48 .