406 réponses à ce sujet

[Grimwick]

RiouHotaru wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Absolutely False.  You are forgetting that the Reapers are Senient and able to make moral choice as is the Catalyst (that's what it means to be an AI and Sentient).  Just because you refese to do what the Catalyst wants does NOT obligate the Reapers to destroy all advanced civilizations in the galaxy.  They CHOOSE to do it anyway, and you are not responsible for that choice. 

In short, I utterly reject the notion of 'negative responsibility'.  OTOH, with Synethesis, you are CHOOSING to change everyone at the most fundamental and intimate level without their consent.  That means you ARE responsible.  That's why Synethesis is a human rights violation while Refusal is not.

-Polaris

The Reapers are programmed, as is the Catalyst.  The only fault of the Catalyst is that it's following it's own programming.

In Refusal, Shepard chooses to do nothing on moral grounds.  In response, the Catalyst ALSO does nothing (since the Catalyst cannot act on the choices given to Shepard, only Shepard can enact them) and the Cycle continues.

Your argument assumes the Catalyst is capable of taking action outside of it's programming, which the game states it can't.

You can't argue around the fact that SHEPARD IS AT FAULT.

So basically you are admitting you are morally responsible for not trying to help every homeless person you see?

You are stretching the morality-from-inaction notion very far here. In fact you cannot stretch this idea so far as Shepard had no idea what would happen when he refused. Refusal is an unknown quantity to Shepard when he made his decision, synthesis is completely known. How can you be morally guilty of something you genuinely don't know will happen?

Modifié par Grimwick, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:41 .

[BatmanPWNS]

Refuse you die as yourself with your own thoughts.
Synthesis, you are forced or brainwash, to accept everything even if you really don't want to.

Modifié par BatmanPWNS, 02 juillet 2012 - 07:40 .

[RiouHotaru]

No he doesn't gain. Hell, in the three given endings he CEASES TO EXIST.

How can the Reapers no longer being a force for ANYTHING possibly equate to a victory?

[RiouHotaru]

Grimwick wrote...

So basically you are admitting you are morally responsible for not trying to help every homeless person you see?

You are stretching the morality-from-inaction notion very far here. In fact you cannot stretch this idea so far as Shepard had no idea what would happen when he refused. Refusal is an unknown quantity to Shepard when he made his decision, synthesis is completely known. How can you be morally guilty of something you genuinely don't know will happen?

There's a difference between a homeless person and Shepard holding the fate of billions of lives in the galaxy in the palm of his/her hand.

And you can be morally guilty.  You KNOW that if you turn down the Catalyst, you will die.  He states it as a certainty, and it's presented by Shepard during his/her speech as a certainty.

[Welsh Inferno]

Whether you like it or not Shepard knows the current races cannot beat the Reapers conventionally. People talk about narrative coherence a lot around here. Which is fair because BW did mess up on several things, but hey, picking refusal believing you can beat them conventionally goes completely against the narrative coherence of what EVERY character including Shepard throughout the three games believes.

[Grimwick]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

So basically you are admitting you are morally responsible for not trying to help every homeless person you see?

You are stretching the morality-from-inaction notion very far here. In fact you cannot stretch this idea so far as Shepard had no idea what would happen when he refused. Refusal is an unknown quantity to Shepard when he made his decision, synthesis is completely known. How can you be morally guilty of something you genuinely don't know will happen?

There's a difference between a homeless person and Shepard holding the fate of billions of lives in the galaxy in the palm of his/her hand.

And you can be morally guilty.  You KNOW that if you turn down the Catalyst, you will die.  He states it as a certainty, and it's presented by Shepard during his/her speech as a certainty.

NO YOU DON'T. He just thinks it is likely... you can't extrapolate his exact emotions from a tinsy speech given...

And actually, from the way you have described the situation and the logic you applied, there isn't.

[xefiroEA]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

Refusal makes sense if:

a: You don't trust the Catalyst.
b: You don't meta-game by knowing the outcomes of each decision
c: Stick with what has worked for Shepard in every single other occasion... be defiant and look for a different solution.

I'll agree on point A, but after the Catalyst's infodump it seems odd to say he's still untrustworthy.  What point would he have in constructing such a ridiculously elaborate set of lies (assuming he can lie at all.  Remember, AIs by default cannot lie)

Haha, I'm sorry. What? Since when can AI's not lie? We have several examples of AIs. Sovereign, Harbinger, EDI, the crazy AI in the presidium and the Geth. The Reapers lied to their indoctrinated servants, promising them as part of indoctrination a future that wasn't going to happen. EDI tells us that once her blocks are removed she's free to lie as much as she wanted (it was how she remained hidden between ME2 and 3) and even before she could omit information and let you carry on believeing things that were wrong. The crazy AI kept itself hidden and framed her creator's creator (it was created by a more primitive AI which some guy had created) to cover its tracks.

Every AI can lie in the game. And the Catalyst has every reason to lie.

[Sniktchtherat]

RiouHotaru wrote...

No he doesn't gain. Hell, in the three given endings he CEASES TO EXIST.

How can the Reapers no longer being a force for ANYTHING possibly equate to a victory?

Because he got what he wanted.  He forced life to follow the pattern HE decided was acceptable.  HE made the rules.  HE held the control.  Synthesis?  He gets you to force the unforceable solution, and essentially turn everyone into one species.  Transorganic hybrids in the same vein as the Reapers.  Control?  THE KID IS CUED INTO YOUR BRAIN.  He is wearing a face from your nightmares, for ****'s sake!  You think he's going to offer you the job if he cannot accept how you are going to do it?  In fact, that's his exact wording: "i will not like it.  But I can accept it."  Destroy?  Hey look - you just wiped out all the synths in the galaxy!  Nice goin', bucko - the Reapers didn't want them around anyway.  Too bad if we did.  And again...why would the kid even THINK to offer an option that is a complete refutation of his entire purpose unless he gained from it?  here's a couple of fun examples.

Realms Of The Haunting:  Elias Camber stands before Adam Randall, taunting him, baiting him, offering Adam the chance to avenge what happened to Adam's dad by killing Elias.  Only problem is, he isn't telling Adam that if he DOES kill Camber, he's just screwed the entire world, since Camber is wearing the last of the seven seals of Apocalypse and keeps presenting that portion of his body to Adam.  If Adam kills Camber, Camber WINS.

Batman.  The Joker LOVES giving Batman the chance to kill him.  Why?  Because the Joker has two ways he "wins" - he kills Bats...or Bats kills HIM, thus breaking Bats' code, and renouncing everything he IS.  If bats kills the Joker, the Joker WINS.

Return Of The Jedi: "Strike me down, young Skywalker.  I am not armed...."

Star Wars ANH: "srike me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." 

ALL of them had a REASON for their actions.  What reason does the KID have, if the "chaos will return" - if synthetics will in the future oncemore wipe out organics?  By dying, he serves NO purpose, and refutes his entire existence.  NOBODY DOES THAT WITHOUT A REASON.  Even the crazy example has a REASON.  The kid has an angle.  We can't see it.  But it IS there.

[tanisha__unknown]

In synthesis it's you taking away the choice, in refusal it's the reapers.

[v TricKy v]

Jinx1720 wrote...

In synthesis it's you taking away the choice, in refusal it's the reapers.

simple but to the point

[RiouHotaru]

Fandango9641 wrote...

That you fail to see that theres more compassion, courage and (yes) humanity in rejecting the genocidal mantra of the Reapers, than there is in surrendering to their skewed logic and monstrous 'solutions' staggers me.  I mean, really.

Then we have a difference of opinion.  To me there's no compassion or courage in rejecting the option to save the current races from being Reaped/killed/whathaveyou when you can do so.

Also, sometimes the right choice isn't always the moral one.  That's part of having to make such a tough decision.  At least in Destroy (my chosen ending), the Reapers are forever gone.  Yes, it cost the Geth and EDI to make it possible, and that's tragic, but the Cycle comes to the an END, and others get to live to tell their children they survived it.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

"the right choice isn't always the moral one"
sweet

Edit: BW, seriously, what have you done? I could understand great works of art inspiring people to be righteous, or compassionate, or sacrificial. What ME inspires people to with it final "difficult choice"?

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:18 .

[Welsh Inferno]

Jinx1720 wrote...

In synthesis it's you taking away the choice, in refusal it's the reapers.

There is a mother who has two children, a boy and a girl. Both children are tied to a railway track and you only have enough time to save one before a train kills them. Which one would you/the mother choose to save?

Picking either one results in the other's death and as a result his/her right to self determination.
Refusing to pick will result in both their deaths but morally it is an impossible decision to make.

Not exactly a perfect analogy but whatever, thought up on the spot.

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Absolutely False.  You are forgetting that the Reapers are Senient and able to make moral choice as is the Catalyst (that's what it means to be an AI and Sentient).  Just because you refese to do what the Catalyst wants does NOT obligate the Reapers to destroy all advanced civilizations in the galaxy.  They CHOOSE to do it anyway, and you are not responsible for that choice. 

In short, I utterly reject the notion of 'negative responsibility'.  OTOH, with Synethesis, you are CHOOSING to change everyone at the most fundamental and intimate level without their consent.  That means you ARE responsible.  That's why Synethesis is a human rights violation while Refusal is not.

-Polaris

The Reapers are programmed, as is the Catalyst.  The only fault of the Catalyst is that it's following it's own programming.

In Refusal, Shepard chooses to do nothing on moral grounds.  In response, the Catalyst ALSO does nothing (since the Catalyst cannot act on the choices given to Shepard, only Shepard can enact them) and the Cycle continues.

Your argument assumes the Catalyst is capable of taking action outside of it's programming, which the game states it can't.

You can't argue around the fact that SHEPARD IS AT FAULT.

Wrong.  We are programmmed too.  It's called learning.  Reapers CAN CHOOSE.  They are AIs.  That make them moral agents and hence morally responsible.

-Polaris

Edit PS: It is the difference between an AI and a VI.  An AI has volition and thus moral responsibility and Reapers definately can make choices and so can the catalyst.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 02 juillet 2012 - 08:48 .

[Rasofe]

In the case of Commander Shepard, even inaction is a reaction.

[RiouHotaru]

IanPolaris wrote...


Wrong.  We are programmmed too.  It's called learning.  Reapers CAN CHOOSE.  They are AIs.  That make them moral agents and hence morally responsible.

-Polaris

Edit PS: It is the difference between an AI and a VI.  An AI has volition and thus moral responsibility and Reapers definately can make choices and so can the catalyst.

So the game outright stating you're wrong is a lie?

[Ryzaki]

Eh if the Leviathan DLC is true it means the Reapers could've said F this and left starbrat.

They choose to stay with him. (assuming Leviathan isn't special in some way or some crap).

But the whole point of AI is that it can make decisions for itself. That's why it's an AI rather than a VI. So either the Reapers aren't true AI or they can refuse the Starbrat. (EDI was shackled true enough but I don't recall her doing anything she didn't want to do. The only thing she couldn't do was give Shep some information about Cerberus info. Which she did once she was unshackled).

Or they're all indoctrinated in which case killing starbrat should get rid of most of the issues (too bad that's not an option without killing the rest of the Reapers/taking his place).

And sorry but no inaction isn't the same as a negative action. I don't violate someone by standing by while they die. It's a jerkish thing to do sure but it's not a violation.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:25 .

[Nerevar-as]

Ryzaki wrote...

Eh if the Leviathan DLC is true it means the Reapers could've said F this and left starbrat.

They choose to stay with him. (assuming Leviathan isn't special in some way or some crap).

But the whole point of AI is that it can make decisions for itself. That's why it's an AI rather than a VI. So either the Reapers aren't true AI or they can refuse the Starbrat. (EDI was shackled true enough but I don't recall her doing anything she didn't want to do. The only thing she couldn't do was give Shep some information about Cerberus info. Which she did once she was unshackled).

Or they're all indoctrinated in which case killing starbrat should get rid of most of the issues (too bad that's not an option without killing the rest of the Reapers/taking his place).

I don´t think killing SB would free the Reapers. If indoctrinated, the process is already done when they were uploaded.  SB is their consensus, so I´d say it´s what Legion is to the programs that formed him.

Another thing I don´t understand is the Reapers preserving the culture of their species. They clearly despise organics and synthetics, saw us as vermin, yet they are made from DNA or equivalent (turned into metal... nonsense didn´t start with synthesis) and keep their culture? Something doesn´t add here.

[Ryzaki]

Nerevar-as wrote...
I don´t think killing SB would free the Reapers. If indoctrinated, the process is already done when they were uploaded.  SB is their consensus, so I´d say it´s what Legion is to the programs that formed him.

Another thing I don´t understand is the Reapers preserving the culture of their species. They clearly despise organics and synthetics, saw us as vermin, yet they are made from DNA or equivalent (turned into metal... nonsense didn´t start with synthesis) and keep their culture? Something doesn´t add here.

Honestly I fully believe ME3 goes full retard once you hit Priority Earth. It wasn't all that bright before but ME1 and ME2 at least hid it and it was adorable at times. ME3 just makes me shake my head.

I'm not sure since Shepard can replace their codes and ideals maybe it would at least confuse/stun them (like Saren in ME1) making them easy pickings for the fleet.

And yeah that just...*throws hands up* full retard. That's all I can say.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

The Angry One wrote...

All species of the galaxy agreed to fight the Reapers, to the end if need be.
Not become the Reapers. Making a deal with the Catalyst to alter their being to please it is a violation and a betrayal.

Refusal is an affirmation of the galaxy's will to defy the Reapers, to reject their deals and not bow down to their evil.
If we die, we die free.

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

People are still around in both. Just different people. Depends of what difference you think is the best.

Good point, but allow me to offer a counterpoint:

There's no reason to believe the species of the Refuse cycle wouldn't join the Galactic community in the future of the Synthesis ending.

There will be no synthesis ending in the future, because the future cycle aren't stupid.

Basically sums it up.

[Tokalla]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Your argument assumes the Catalyst is capable of taking action outside of it's programming, which the game states it can't.

Unwillingness is not inability.  AI are not bound by their initial programming and are able to alter their own programming, else they would not be capable of learning and adapting.  EDI actually discusses this earlier in the game.  If the Catalyst is forever bound by its initial programming, then it is not actually an AI.

The game stated AI can alter their own programming.  This is demonstrated by every AI you have seen since the first game, and is mentioned directly in ME3.  The game states the Catalyst is an AI.  The points do not indicate that the points others have raised are a lie, as none of this information is incongruent with what they have stated.  I would even argue that placing blame for the actions of the Catalyst on Shepard ignores that the Catalyst is not actually forced to continue using a solution it has already indicated is flawed due to Shepard's unwillingness to choose from the options presented (though dialogue does limit you from doing something truly reasonable like requesting a cease fire or at least requesting communication with others, but it is a game so limitations are to be expected).

Modifié par Tokalla, 02 juillet 2012 - 10:05 .

[Geneaux486]

IanPolaris wrote...
You don't.  The Catalyst does.  The Catalyst is in total control of the Crucible regardless of what he says (proof: He can turn it off at any time).

The power flow cuts off, that's all we know.  Maybe the Catalyst does it, maybe he doesn't.  The fact is that if the Catalyst had any actual control over the Crucible itself, it wouldn't need Shepard to activate it.  It doesn't, so Shepard is needed.  It's the weapon of organics, and the choices presented by it, as explained by the Catalyst, are the choices that organics chose to work into the device's design.

Futhermore, The Catalyst can stop the Reapers any time he wants to.

"We are each a nation.  Independent, free of all weakness."  The Catalyst may control the Reapers in the sense that he gave them their purpose, but there's nothing to suggest that he could simply stop them if he wanted to.

You have to trust the catalyst (and you have no reason to) is telling the truth, and even then the Catalyst has to allow your actions to work.

Irrelevant when the only other option is to submit to the Reaper extinction cycle and join their ranks.

That means you are NOT a valid moral agent.  The Catalyst is.  That is the a-number-one problem with the endings even now (except Refusal).

The Catalyst is an objective artificial intelligence that has acknowleged the superiority of organic ingenuity over the Reapers.  It provides Shepard with the last bit of information he needs to use the weapon of the organics.  Shepard is a valid moral agent, the Catalyst is a glorified tool.

It is NOT.  Refusal ONLY means that you did not do what the Catalyst wanted you do.

Refusal is the exact opposite of this.  You're letting the cycle continue, refusing to use the weapon everyone agreed needed to be fired at all costs, and dooming everyone to Reaperficiation, and that's after so many of your allies suffered and died to get the thing into place.  It's more in line with the Catalyst's goals than any of the three Crucible choices.

That is the only thing you are "responsible" for.  It is the CATALYST that takes the moral blame for the rest not you.  I reject your entire moral premise. 

-Polaris

It's not so much my moral premise as it is simple logic based on in-game facts and understanding of the lore.  The Crucible presents the chance for victory, refusing to use it guarantees a fate worse than death for Shepard and everyone else.  In refusing to use it you not only disobey direct orders, but waste all the time and effort that your allies put into the Crucible's construction.  The blame and responsibility fall on Shepard's shoulders alone, because it is his choice, seeing as how the Catalyst was willing to cooperate and Shepard refuses.  Simple fact is:
Activation:  Chance of victory, action supported by everyone who's suffered and died to get you to this point.
Refusal:  Resignation to defeat and Reaperfication, your allies (and most likely yourself) are forcibly brought into the Reaper fold and would join in the attrocities of the next cycle.

It's Shepard's decision, his responsibility, because he was on the front lines committed to following his orders like any soldier. 

Refuse you die as yourself with your own thoughts.

 
Actually it's more likely that you're put into the human-Reaper, living on as the Catalyst's willful servant.  So yeah.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:56 .

[Tokalla]

 To those that feel the Catalyst has no control of the Reapers after creating them, I feel that is not likely the case based on the evidence shown in the games.  From the first game we have seen the ability of a Reaper to remotely control at least certain minions.  The concept of indoctrination shows degrees of both brainwashing and mind control via ranged commands to various degrees (possibly just due to different writers, modifications over to the idea over the years, etc).  The Control ending has Shepard replacing the Catalyst, yet every Reaper seems to act effectively as part of a collective.  Even if there is no control beyond initial creation though, shouldn't the Catalyst be able to contact them to order that they stand down (I feel certain the Citadel must have communications systems, and that the actual leader of a force should be obeyed by at least the majority of said force).  If the Reapers are designed to channel themselves into minions, why should we assume the Catalyst is restricted from this same capacity?  I agree that I don't assume he has the same ability, but as the commander of the Reapers, it would be unreasonable to presume he has no ability to at least contact them.  Either they are the worst designed harvesting/military force ever, or the Catalyst is simply unwilling (but more likely it was done to force urgency at the end of the narrative and lacks any thought out in game reasoning).