331 réponses à ce sujet

[Sniktchtherat]

I chose Refuse because the three official options I was given were presented by a clearly psychotic AI who's currently running all the machines that are killing all the people I care about in order to save them from being killed by machines. And when I told this psychotic AI I didn't believe him his response was that my belief was not needed, only my action - and by inference, my obedience. Given that this AI had admitted to having murdered its creators in the pursuit of its solution, and it now wants me to help it create a new solution...I'd be an IDIOT to trust anything it says.

[ahleung]

F00lishG wrote...

Whoa I go to sleep for five hours. Where did all these replies come from? XD

Because admin locked some other Refusal ending discussion threads and told people to come here

[Dresden867]

chuckles471 wrote...

Principle.

I won't let a bully dictate the fate of the galaxy. We lose, so be it.

Congratulations. Now you -are- the bully dictating the fate of the galaxy.

[saracen16]

Morals and values mean nothing in the face of saving lives.

[MegaSovereign]

"Reject Shepards"

Sounds hipster, lulz.

[SiberETP]

If I wade a little deeper into the game here, put myself in shepard's place, then I essentially have to reject the Catalyst's offer. He speaks for the reapers, the reapers that have tried to kill and undermine me at every turn. The fact that he wants me to do something should tell me that doing it will help him and not me. There is every reason to distrust him and his motives and no reason to believe him. It could all be an indoctrination hallucination for all I know, accepting one of his options could just be the first step of him breaking down my resistance to him.

If I step out of character, see the author and the dramatic structure, then yes as a player I can choose something else. Control personally. But if I stay in character, no. If this monster wants me to do something, it's to advance his goals, and I can't believe him when he tells me what those goals are. My only option left is to bleed out, maybe take my life before the indoctrination can set in. We may die, but we'll die free, not in the freakish forms the reapers want to make us into. It's harsh, it may not be my place to make that decision for everyone in the galaxy, but its the one I have to make.

An aside; My goal these three games wasn't to KILL the Reapers. It was to STOP the Reapers. If I can do that without killing them, I'll consider doing it. It's tempting to say they must pay for what they've done, but that kind of thinking has caused too much pain in history to accept blindly. So stop telling me that I've been trying to KILL the Reapers for the rest of the series, it simply isn't true.

[saracen16]

SiberETP wrote...

If I wade a little deeper into the game here, put myself in shepard's place, then I essentially have to reject the Catalyst's offer. He speaks for the reapers, the reapers that have tried to kill and undermine me at every turn. The fact that he wants me to do something should tell me that doing it will help him and not me. There is every reason to distrust him and his motives and no reason to believe him. It could all be an indoctrination hallucination for all I know, accepting one of his options could just be the first step of him breaking down my resistance to him.

If I step out of character, see the author and the dramatic structure, then yes as a player I can choose something else. Control personally. But if I stay in character, no. If this monster wants me to do something, it's to advance his goals, and I can't believe him when he tells me what those goals are. My only option left is to bleed out, maybe take my life before the indoctrination can set in. We may die, but we'll die free, not in the freakish forms the reapers want to make us into. It's harsh, it may not be my place to make that decision for everyone in the galaxy, but its the one I have to make.

Only that the Reapers will win. Do you want to die willingly knowing that you have the key to saving all life in the galaxy right in front of you?

[v3paR]

Ok i dont want to sound like smartass here but imagine this:

You are in WW2 entering your enemy headquaters just to find their leader offering you 3 options. You dont know if you can trust him or not. Now their leader telling you he just found solution to the whole war right in this very moment and you can either take over his place, merge the whole world with them (!) or destroy them but also killing all people in one random country. And all those options will end the war. Do you honestly trust him or just shoot him in the head, take your rifle and walk away?

And since i'm playing video game and i can reload my save and learn that Refuse option eventualy destroyed Reapers i consider that option the best. Destroy would be always my choice without EC or second best option.

If however Refuse didnt solve the reapers problem at all i would go with destroy all the way (as was with my first playthrough).

Modifié par v3paR, 30 juin 2012 - 02:43 .

[Aaleel]

v3paR wrote...

Ok i dont want to sound like smartass here but imagine this:

You are in WW2 entering your enemy headquaters just to find their leader offering you 3 options. You dont know if you can trust him or not. Now their leader telling you he just found solution to the whole war right in this very moment and you can either take over his place, merge the whole world with them (!) or destroy them but also killing all people in one random country. And all those options will end the war. Do you honestly trust him or just shoot him in the head, take your rifle and walk away?

And since i'm playing video game and i can reload my save and learn that Refuse option eventualy destroyed Reapers i consider that option the best. Destroy would be always my choice without EC or second best option.

If however Refuse didnt solve the reapers problem at all i would go with destroy all the way (as was with my first playthrough).

Not nearly the same thing. 

You built the crucible and everyone agreed that using it was the only way to stop the reapers, and if it is not used everyone is going to die.  You came up with a plan, executed the plan, people died carrying out the plan, but then Shepard balked at the end.

You know if you refuse to use the Crucible everyone is going to die.  Maybe the Catalyst is lying, maybe the Catalyst isn't.  If it isn't you stop the reapers, if it is lying, you're no worse off than if you refuse to use it, you're going to die sooner or later anyway.  Refusing accomplishes nothing at all, nothing.

 

[saracen16]

v3paR wrote...

Ok i dont want to sound like smartass here but imagine this:

You are in WW2 entering your enemy headquaters just to find their leader offering you 3 options. You dont know if you can trust him or not. Now their leader telling you he just found solution to the whole war right in this very moment and you can either take over his place, merge the whole world with them (!) or destroy them but also killing all people in one random country. And all those options will end the war. Do you honestly trust him or just shoot him in the head, take your rifle and walk away?

And since i'm playing video game and i can reload my save and learn that Refuse option eventualy destroyed Reapers i consider that option the best. Destroy would be always my choice without EC or second best option.

If however Refuse didnt solve the reapers problem at all i would go with destroy all the way (as was with my first playthrough).

Oh, you do that in the ending of ME3, except that the rifle is a really really big bomb that you were building since the beginning of the game. Do you want to guess what it is?

[SiberETP]

I don't know that the reapers will win, and I also don't know that the reapers won't win if I act. If I think about the situation I am in for any amount of time, I am forced to conclude that logically, anything the catalyst is asking me to do will HELP the reapers, reducing the odds for the rest of the galaxy.

Knowing that the catalyst isn't lying, having foreknoweldge of how the endings will play out, I can choose one of them and feel satisfied. But Shepard has no way of knowing that, and a refusal to play the enemy's game is not only the only logical move, but it's the only in-character one. If I don't do what they want, the reapers MIGHT win. If I do what the Catalyst wants, and thus the reapers want, then that must lead them to victory, no matter what they say to the contrary. It must be a trick, and no amount of emotional manipulation with their choices of hologram images(already showing that its getting it my head, or else how would they know that image has been haunting me?) will break down my resolve.

[mjs2101]

My question is, why are the options taken from you simply by shooting the star-child? I mean, did we not build the Catalyst during the whole of ME3? But yet, somehow, the Reapers are able to end your choices simply because you shoot the "hologram"? If the Catalyst was a design from the Protheans and built by us, would we not have the three options regardless if we choose to listen to the star-child or not?

[v3paR]

Aaleel wrote...

You built the crucible and everyone agreed that using it was the only way to stop the reapers, and if it is not used everyone is going to die.  You came up with a plan, executed the plan, people died carrying out the plan, but then Shepard balked at the end.

You right about that.

And if the crucible was in fact only a weapon, one that i can use myself and one that would blast the reapers into oblivion leaving all other species alive i would use it without any hesitation.
But instead of a weapon there is leader of my enemy standing and waiting in front of that weapon telling me how i can use it. How do i know if he didnt alter the weapon for its own purpose?

As i said in other thread. If i were to stand there myself not knowing the outcome i would probably pick Destroy. This is only solution which eliminate the reapers. The one i was fighting for.

But from videogame point of view and knowing the outcome of all endings i choose to Refuse.
(unless someone give me a solid proof that the crucible was used in future to defeat the reapers then theres no point
in refusal and i change my mind to 100% Destroy)

[F00lishG]

v3paR wrote...

Ok i dont want to sound like smartass here but imagine this:

You are in WW2 entering your enemy headquaters just to find their leader offering you 3 options. You dont know if you can trust him or not. Now their leader telling you he just found solution to the whole war right in this very moment and you can either take over his place, merge the whole world with them (!) or destroy them but also killing all people in one random country. And all those options will end the war. Do you honestly trust him or just shoot him in the head, take your rifle and walk away?

And since i'm playing video game and i can reload my save and learn that Refuse option eventualy destroyed Reapers i consider that option the best. Destroy would be always my choice without EC or second best option.

If however Refuse didnt solve the reapers problem at all i would go with destroy all the way (as was with my first playthrough).

In conventional war:

Kill the Leader aka Destroy:
Take over the Leader's position Capturing the Leader aka Control
Merge the two countries Create a Peace Treaty aka Synthesis
Allowing the War to continue, causing needless lives to be lost aka Reject.

No one should just trust the enemy 100%, but if the enemy leader is at your mercy and they speak of ways to end the war, you are supposed to give a benefit of a doubt. That's how wars end and peace begins. Otherwise we would have experienced World War 3 decades ago.

[MrDavid]

It amuses me how people avoid Destroy because it would kill EDI, even though she clearly states that she would rather die than let the Reapers win. Ditto for Legion.

[ArchDuck]

shurikenmanta wrote...

Somehow along the way people thought that Bioware owed them some kind of 'golden ending' where you can dive out the airlock and beat billion-year-old machines off the technological scale with flashy martial arts moves.

Most reasonable people can see how unlikely that is.

Hey. Look, its you. Beating up that nice strawman you built. Good job.

[Gibsy]

The problem with the Refuse ending is that it makes Shepard's role seem inferior. He spend so much time gathering War Assets, beating the odds, and watching Blasto that at the end when he just pulls a "F**k this s**t." and passes the torch down to Liara's time capsule to deal with it, we are taken aback. Shepard shouldn't have been so indifferent. In the last minutes, Mass Effect 3 turns into Apathetic Effect 3 and Shepard takes a seat on his lawn chair and sips his juice pouch while the galaxy is assimilated. If a Last stand blaze of glory was INTENDED, it should have been shown. IT believers would have eaten that up like candy. Since they didn't, it should've been left out entirely. It's fuel to a flame.

[KingZayd]

F00lishG wrote...

v3paR wrote...

Ok i dont want to sound like smartass here but imagine this:

You are in WW2 entering your enemy headquaters just to find their leader offering you 3 options. You dont know if you can trust him or not. Now their leader telling you he just found solution to the whole war right in this very moment and you can either take over his place, merge the whole world with them (!) or destroy them but also killing all people in one random country. And all those options will end the war. Do you honestly trust him or just shoot him in the head, take your rifle and walk away?

And since i'm playing video game and i can reload my save and learn that Refuse option eventualy destroyed Reapers i consider that option the best. Destroy would be always my choice without EC or second best option.

If however Refuse didnt solve the reapers problem at all i would go with destroy all the way (as was with my first playthrough).

In conventional war:

Kill the Leader aka Destroy:
Take over the Leader's position Capturing the Leader aka Control
Merge the two countries Create a Peace Treaty aka Synthesis
Allowing the War to continue, causing needless lives to be lost aka Reject.

No one should just trust the enemy 100%, but if the enemy leader is at your mercy and they speak of ways to end the war, you are supposed to give a benefit of a doubt. That's how wars end and peace begins. Otherwise we would have experienced World War 3 decades ago.

But Starchild hadn't surrendered. Shepard said we'd rather keep our form, implying we'd rather be left alone. Starchild refused. Starchild gave us an ultimatum. That's all it is. It's not just looking for a way to end the conflict, that would be easy (go away Reapers)

There wasn't even any show of good faith, no temporary cessation of hostility.

Modifié par KingZayd, 30 juin 2012 - 09:02 .

[KingZayd]

Aaleel wrote...

v3paR wrote...

Ok i dont want to sound like smartass here but imagine this:

You are in WW2 entering your enemy headquaters just to find their leader offering you 3 options. You dont know if you can trust him or not. Now their leader telling you he just found solution to the whole war right in this very moment and you can either take over his place, merge the whole world with them (!) or destroy them but also killing all people in one random country. And all those options will end the war. Do you honestly trust him or just shoot him in the head, take your rifle and walk away?

And since i'm playing video game and i can reload my save and learn that Refuse option eventualy destroyed Reapers i consider that option the best. Destroy would be always my choice without EC or second best option.

If however Refuse didnt solve the reapers problem at all i would go with destroy all the way (as was with my first playthrough).

Not nearly the same thing. 

You built the crucible and everyone agreed that using it was the only way to stop the reapers, and if it is not used everyone is going to die.  You came up with a plan, executed the plan, people died carrying out the plan, but then Shepard balked at the end.

You know if you refuse to use the Crucible everyone is going to die.  Maybe the Catalyst is lying, maybe the Catalyst isn't.  If it isn't you stop the reapers, if it is lying, you're no worse off than if you refuse to use it, you're going to die sooner or later anyway.  Refusing accomplishes nothing at all, nothing.

 

We don't know why it wants us to use it. It could have disastrous results beyond even our cycle.

[Kyazain]

Riddle me this, riddle me that. Who wants to kill that stupid glowing brat?

I'm sorry. I felt the urge to write that.

[Sniktchtherat]

KingZayd wrote...

F00lishG wrote...

v3paR wrote...

Ok i dont want to sound like smartass here but imagine this:

You are in WW2 entering your enemy headquaters just to find their leader offering you 3 options. You dont know if you can trust him or not. Now their leader telling you he just found solution to the whole war right in this very moment and you can either take over his place, merge the whole world with them (!) or destroy them but also killing all people in one random country. And all those options will end the war. Do you honestly trust him or just shoot him in the head, take your rifle and walk away?

And since i'm playing video game and i can reload my save and learn that Refuse option eventualy destroyed Reapers i consider that option the best. Destroy would be always my choice without EC or second best option.

If however Refuse didnt solve the reapers problem at all i would go with destroy all the way (as was with my first playthrough).

In conventional war:

Kill the Leader aka Destroy:
Take over the Leader's position Capturing the Leader aka Control
Merge the two countries Create a Peace Treaty aka Synthesis
Allowing the War to continue, causing needless lives to be lost aka Reject.

No one should just trust the enemy 100%, but if the enemy leader is at your mercy and they speak of ways to end the war, you are supposed to give a benefit of a doubt. That's how wars end and peace begins. Otherwise we would have experienced World War 3 decades ago.

But Starchild hadn't surrendered. Shepard said we'd rather keep our form, implying we'd rather be left alone. Starchild refused. Starchild gave us an ultimatum. That's all it is. It's not just looking for a way to end the conflict, that would be easy (go away Reapers)

There wasn't even any show of good faith, no temporary cessation of hostility.

A wonderful way of putting it - the three "offered" endings are all fatally flawed in a lot of ways, but the worst way they are flawed is that they are all effectively surrender to a single enemy ultimatum.  Yes, even Destroy.

Taken in reverse order of offer:

Synthesis.  This is the CaseMaclyst's favored option, and the goal of the Reapers from the beginning - forcing organic life in the galaxy into a form of their choosing, ostensibly to preserve it.  The problem is, by doing so, you further a Reaper tactic you've already been told about, the guiding of development down paths the Reapers have chosen as useful to them, either to make the harvest more efficeint, or to assist in pacification.  Homogenized cultures have fallen to the Reapers since the beginning, as confirmed by Javik and the CaseMaclyst - a culture that is monolithic does not adapt when its weak points are hit.  It shatters and crumbles, and the broken pieces are easy pickings.  By performing synthesis, you homogenize the galaxy; in effect, you merge all species into one.  Yes, physical variety will remain...but everyone is now a transorganic hybrid, even if they find the idea of implants abhorrent.  The CaseMaclyst sees no problem with forcing a particular evolutionary and societal path on the galaxy; it's been doing that since the day it murdered its creators and turned them into the first Reaper.  Shepard, however, is not the CaseMaclyst, and depending on your choices, may in fact have taken a hard-line stand in defense of Legion's statement...."all life has the right to self-determinate".  One of the main driving forces in this game series has been that your choices matter, your free will matters.  Synthesis is the ultimate removal of free will from the galaxy - nobody but CaseMaclyst gets a say in what you become.  He has the...

Control.  The middle presented option, and one the CaseMaclyst is ambivalent about - his words are effectively "I will not like it but it is acceptable".  Control boils down to boiling Shepard down and turning him/her into the Starkid Mk. 2.  He says the Reapers will bend to your will.  He also told Saren that they'd spare the galaxy if we surrendered, and fooled TIM into thinking HE had the control.  Remember, in the game series, EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has thought they were "safe" from the influence of the Reapers while interacting with any part of them has fallen under their sway.  Further, the kid all but says you'll turn into a Reaper - the beings HE CONTROLS.  You're putting your trust in the enemy you've fought for three long years?  You're accepting his statements as truth without verification?  Last guy who did that died on the platform below not 5 minutes ago.  And once more, you further a Reaper tactic you've already been told about, the guiding of development down paths the Reapers have chosen as useful to them, either to make the harvest more efficeint, or to assist in pacification. Shepard's ways of thinking are KNOWN to the CaseMaclyst.  He KNOWS precisely how s/he will guide the galaxy - and can accept that path.  Your enemy dislikes the idea of losing his job...but can accept you taking it.  We know the Reaper goal is homogenization, again ostensibly for preservation.  If CaseMaclyst finds Shepard's taking the job acceptable, that means exactly one thing: Shepard will unify the galaxy...the same way the Protheans did.  And as we've seen, a galaxy sheltered from division by the guiding hand of an overlord species...or a Shepard... the hand following a path Casemaclyst finds acceptable...that the REAPERS find acceptable...is a galaxy easy to ...

Destroy.  The first offered option, and the one the kid harps against the most.  But if it's the bad choice....why mention it?  AI can lie.  AI can omit.  CaseMaclyst fooled TIM, he fooled Saren.  These are not dull people - they both made their livelihoods being ruthless, observant, detail-oriented and goal-focused.  So why is he telling us "shoot that and I die"?  Yes, he'd adding in the whole "and I'll take as many of your friends with me as I can, so don't", but he's still putting your gun to his head and saying "Shoot and you win!"  Nothing logical offers self-destruction as a solution unless it somehow furthers their own ends.  CaseMaclyst isn't diving in front of a bullet like Conrad Verner thought he did.  He's not sacrificing himself to save another.  He's offering you victory...on his terms.  Same as the other two.  But on what terms?  Simple: all synthetics in the galaxy die.  Note the phrasing.  "All syhtetics in the galaxy die."  CaseMaclyst is the Reaper hivemind.  Who's to say he has to STAY on the Citadel?  The Reapers came from dark space - beyond the galactic rim.  Did all of them come?  We know they can communicate across vast distance - Sovereign and Harbinger both natter with Shep over conventional channels, and Harbinger can manifest his direct will into individuals almost 3 years before physically reaching galactic space.  That's a LOT of long-range, lag-free comm power.  Perhaps even enough to let an AI transfer itself across the width of the galaxy, past a destroyed and thus non-dangerous relay...and out of the killzone.  Do we trust CaseMaclyst to just die because we got the macguffin to the widget?  If he's truly willing to just let us win, why not just walk away?  No, he has an angle...and once again, it's this: If you destroy all synthetics,  you further a Reaper tactic you've already been told about, the guiding of development down paths the Reapers have chosen as useful to them, either to make the harvest more efficeint, or to assist in pacification.  The Reapers don't like other synthetics.  Synthetics are diversity, not homogenity - and diversity is hard to predict, hard to counter, hard to conquer.  Synthetics moreso, because they are driven to understand, to question, to seek - and unlike organics, are not biolimited in how long they can do so.  Synthetics only survive a cycle if they're so well-hidden that it's likely they'll run out of batteries before anyone finds them - because otherwise, you've got data transmission from cycle to cycle, forewarning, all the things we got from the Protheans.  The kid doesn't think organics can do this - he states flatly that he thought the Crucible's very idea was destroyed several cycles before.  But he DOES know synthetics CAN do this - hell, it's almost a direct map to what he says he's doing.  So synths get eradicated, to preserve the ignorance that is the Reaper's first, best weapon.  If no-one believes you exist...then they have no way to prepare to fight you. 

So, as you see, all three endings break down to the same base ideal - no matter what you do, if you pick one of CaseMaclyyst's solutions, you are allowing the Reapers to choose the future of the galaxy.  CaseMaclyst must have some reason to allow Shepard to have some small say in which version of Reaper-guided evolution we get, but damned if I'm going to trust that motive.  Before Hammer started moving, I gave a speech that ended with "Let's win our future".  It didn't end with "Let's let someone else hand out a future of their design and choosing, as they've done every time they've finished a harvest before".  OUR future.  Not CaseMaclyst's.

As a sidenote, there's also a psychological component to CaseMaclyst's insistence that all nonhostile synths die with him - he was created to bridge the gap between organics and synthetics.  By his own admission, he failed repeatedly until he murdered his creators and melted the bodies into the first Reaper.  Repeated failures at a task that is crucially important to an individual's identity - their core purpose, if you will - tends to cause a range of psychological issues.  Long enough failures tends to generate psychosis as the indivudual retreats from the shame reaction into a psychotic construct - essentially a view of reality of their own making, generally with a slanted view of their own self-importance and infallibility.  In such a construct, killing all organics with synthetics to prevent synthetics from killing all organics could easily be rationalized.  But If WE manage to live in peace with synths without his solutions, his entire psychosis construct is slammed face-first into reality.  He has to face his failures, admit his errors, and accept that someone else did his job better than he ever could.  When a psychotic is shoved hard into irrefutable evidence of his break with reality, the result is usually a worse break - either into full dissociation and catatonia...or into murderous rage.  If he can't fix the problem, then no-one will, because no-one will be left.

Food for thought, no?

Modifié par Sniktchtherat, 30 juin 2012 - 12:59 .

[Joccaren]

saracen16 wrote...

Morals and values mean nothing in the face of saving lives.

Oh the irony in just this statement... Its hilarious.

[RinuCZ]

Sniktchtherat wrote...

Great post, exactly my thoughts.

Sniktchtherat wrote...
...Note the phrasing.  "All syhtetics in the galaxy die."  CaseMaclyst is the Reaper hivemind.  Who's to say he has to STAY on the Citadel?  The Reapers came from dark space - beyond the galactic rim.  Did all of them come?

This strucked me too. Reaper don't visit the galaxy until their task is to be done. Where do they exist until then? Why should all of them come? Relays don't cover everything. Or they don't allow an access to everything. After all, races in ME still failed to figure out how to build them.

[Jackums]

It's butthurt. Ego. Refusal to do anything the Catalyst offers because that would compromise your pride.

Etc, etc.

[SHARXTREME]

@Sniktchtherat

You have many valid points, based on only logical conclusion- that the Catalyst is giving you the options for "victory". And I completely agree on that.

Catalyst is introduced in last few minutes of the game.
Extended cut even magnified Starchilds role beyond any measure. Starchild in fact became the main and single most important character of all Mass Effect history.
With his invasion in ME story.everything in Mass effect story becomes signed&approved by Starchild.
He becomes the master and original problem that drove you in the situation you are. But Bioware doesn't give you the option to win the game against that character who is completely oblivious to the fact that HE IS THE PROBLEM/ENEMY. Even original Reapers are victims to Starchilds faulty logic.
It just presents you with more faulty solutions, that is what broken AI do, they magnify and evolve the problem because they:

a) Can't see true nature of the problem, namely themselves
can't escape the bounds of their original program
c) can't solve the problem given indefinite time, because their program isn't able to accept one simple fact, that they are the problem, that their inability to comprehend nature is an X. Because they cant evolve themselves and see past the confines of their false problem-solution logic, they instead EVOLVE THE PROBLEM.(Just like Bioware evolved the ending)

Idea behind sintetics/reapers is the quest for immortality, and/or form/tought preservation.
But nature does not work that way. Nature preserves itself, its function and essence, not its form.
Nature preserves life above all else, with the mechanism of survival at (any)cost of form.
And we all know that the form is meaningless for living, and the preservation of form/idea is impossible, counterproductive and futile task. Only organisms that adapt - survive.
.
That would be idea behind synthesis, but not in the ME3 story.
In ME3 story the one who is trying to keep his form and to survive at any cost of life of others is Catalyst. You just can't give in to his idea, because he constantly tries to preserve the problem.
He can't evolve because he is against nature, and all his choices are wrong,(as the story stands now)

Bioware expanded this Catalyst character almost beyond any logical solution and good measure. Catalyst doesn't even want to live, he just wants to stay in the form of unsolvable problem, to integrate itself in nature as a factor that can't be ever put aside and by any means possible.

Bioware positioned Catalyst so high that even they cannot rewrite him

Yep, some people have such ideas about own value in natural order and craving for immortality.
Not to mention real historical figures and artists, I will just mention Miranda's father, The illusive man and Shepard. Yes Shepard that is put in a position to choose the faith of countless lives, one entire galaxy. Not to save the Galaxy, but to CHOOSE its faith

So morally, naturally, logically you must refuse. Worst offense to the players is to put Shepard in the position of "The Chosen One(that chooses Catalysts solutions)". "First organic that came so far" "Savior of us all"
Yeah, the current cycle can't win it conventionally. But next will, given you inform them about "Catalyst trap". And nature will win anyway. Catalyst can't beat the nature.