406 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Geneaux486 wrote...

[quote]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).[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

Who else but the Catalyst would turn off the Crucible.  It's not destroyed.  It is turned off.  Shepard doesn't do it.  That leaves the Catalyst.

[quote]


[quote]Futhermore, The Catalyst can stop the Reapers any time he wants to.[/quote]

"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.
[/quote]

That was written before Bioware introduced the Catalyst.  We are explicitly told that the Catalyst DOES control the Reapers and you (as Shepard) can take over as Catalyst in which case you competely control the Reapers. 

[quote]

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

Actually it is extremely relevant.  If the person giving the choice is unreliable, then it's not a moral choice since you can not know if the information is valid.

[quote]

[quote]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).[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

The CATALYST contols the horizontal and verticle.  The catalyst decides to bring Shepard up in the first place.  The Catalyst gets to decide if the Crucible is even turned on or not.  Get the drift?  That's the problem with the ending scene.  Shepard is a spectator.  The true protagonist is the Catalyst and that's not cool.

[quote]

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

Wrong.  The Catalyst by doggedly continuing a solution he ADMITS doesn't work does all that.  You (Shepard) are not to blame.  Period.


[quote]
[quote]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[/quote]

It's not so much my moral premise as it is simple logic based on in-game facts and understanding of the lore.  [/quote]

Full Stop.  Failing to understand this basic point makes everything else you say irrelevant.  The idea of negative responisibility IS a moral premise.  You can not claim "logic or in game facts".  I deny negative responsibility.  You can not be held responsible not acting.  You refuse the Catalyst.  The Catalyst is not required to continue with a genocidal plan it admits no longer works, but does anyway.

Who is the blame?  The Catalyst.

-Polaris

[Geneaux486]

IanPolaris wrote...
Who else but the Catalyst would turn off the Crucible.  It's not destroyed.  It is turned off.  Shepard doesn't do it.  That leaves the Catalyst.

Even if true (and we're only assuming), that implies nothing about the Catalyst's control over the Crucible's functions.  Vendetta tells us that the Citadel serves as the power source for the Crucible.  If the Catalyst did control the Crucible's options, he would not present destroy as a choice.

That was written before Bioware introduced the Catalyst.  We are explicitly told that the Catalyst DOES control the Reapers and you (as Shepard) can take over as Catalyst in which case you competely control the Reapers. 

Written before, not contradicted after unless the Catalyst has complete control of the Reapers, which is never stated ("I control the Reapers" could mean something as simple as that he controlled their purpose). 

Actually it is extremely relevant.  If the person giving the choice is unreliable, then it's not a moral choice since you can not know if the information is valid.

The person giving the choices is not the Catalyst, he merely explains them to you.  Furthermore, Shepard was put on this mission because he was comitted to carrying out the mission, so yes, Shepard does have an obligation to use the Crucible.  To not use it is dereliction of duty.

The CATALYST contols the horizontal and verticle.  The catalyst decides to bring Shepard up in the first place.  The Catalyst gets to decide if the Crucible is even turned on or not.  Get the drift?  That's the problem with the ending scene.  Shepard is a spectator.  The true protagonist is the Catalyst and that's not cool.

The Catalyst also can't use the Crucible, nor did he design or build it, nor do the Reapers have the capabilities to do what it does.  The Catalyst is an antagonist, but an objective one, who acknowleges the superiority of the Crucible and as such assists Shepard in activating it, likely to compensate for the fact that he can't just up and call off the Reaper invasion.

Wrong.  The Catalyst by doggedly continuing a solution he ADMITS doesn't work does all that.  You (Shepard) are not to blame.  Period.

Wrong.  Shepard has the power to end it.  He refuses to do so, going against what was expected of him when he was given the task to begin with.  The Catalyst is to blame for the Reapers, Shepard is to blame for not stopping them.

Full Stop.  Failing to understand this basic point makes everything else you say irrelevant.  The idea of negative responisibility IS a moral premise.  You can not claim "logic or in game facts".  I deny negative responsibility.  You can not be held responsible not acting.  You refuse the Catalyst.  The Catalyst is not required to continue with a genocidal plan it admits no longer works, but does anyway.

Who is the blame?  The Catalyst.

-Polaris

And Shepard is to blame for not activating the Crucible, condeming everyone to Reaperfication.  As I said, it's dereliction of duty at best, indirect mass murder at worst.  The Catalyst's bad behavior does not clean Shepard's hands if he fails to act at the last minute.  He's not doing his job, plain and simple, and in this case it has deadly consequences.  The unknown factor of the Crucible, and the possible rammifications of using a weapon they did not fully understand, had all been considered and deemed a necesarry risk long before.  If Shepard wasn't willing to follow through, then he shouldn't have gone on the mission.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:16 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Geneaux486 wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Who else but the Catalyst would turn off the Crucible.  It's not destroyed.  It is turned off.  Shepard doesn't do it.  That leaves the Catalyst.[/quote]

Even if true (and we're only assuming), that implies nothing about the Catalyst's control over the Crucible's functions.  Vendetta tells us that the Citadel serves as the power source for the Crucible.  If the Catalyst did control the Crucible's options, he would not present destroy as a choice.
[/quote]

It is very clear the Catalyst turns off the crucible.  The ability to turn something off is the ultimate control over it.

[quote]

[quote]That was written before Bioware introduced the Catalyst.  We are explicitly told that the Catalyst DOES control the Reapers and you (as Shepard) can take over as Catalyst in which case you competely control the Reapers.  [/quote]

Written before, not contradicted after unless the Catalyst has complete control of the Reapers, which is never stated ("I control the Reapers" could mean something as simple as that he controlled their purpose). 
[/quote]

The Catalyst DOES contradict it. The catalyst will tell you that the Reapers are HIS, they he controlls the reapers.  You are also told in control that you would replace the Catalyst and that is how you would control the Reapers.

[quote]

[quote]Actually it is extremely relevant.  If the person giving the choice is unreliable, then it's not a moral choice since you can not know if the information is valid.[/quote]

The person giving the choices is not the Catalyst, he merely explains them to you.  Furthermore, Shepard was put on this mission because he was comitted to carrying out the mission, so yes, Shepard does have an obligation to use the Crucible.  To not use it is dereliction of duty.
[/quote]

If you can not depend on what the catalyst is saying to be true, then you can't use it as the basis of a moral decision.  Clearer?

[quote]

[quote]The CATALYST contols the horizontal and verticle.  The catalyst decides to bring Shepard up in the first place.  The Catalyst gets to decide if the Crucible is even turned on or not.  Get the drift?  That's the problem with the ending scene.  Shepard is a spectator.  The true protagonist is the Catalyst and that's not cool.[/quote]

The Catalyst also can't use the Crucible, nor did he design or build it, nor do the Reapers have the capabilities to do what it does.  The Catalyst is an antagonist, but an objective one, who acknowleges the superiority of the Crucible and as such assists Shepard in activating it, likely to compensate for the fact that he can't just up and call off the Reaper invasion.
[/quote]

The catalyst SAYS he can't use the crucible, but we have absolutely no reason to believe this is true, especially when we know he can turn it off.  Also the Catalyst is the one offering the so-called 'choices' and completely controls access to those choices.  That means the Catalyst not Shepard is the moral agent.

[quote]


[quote]Wrong.  The Catalyst by doggedly continuing a solution he ADMITS doesn't work does all that.  You (Shepard) are not to blame.  Period.[/quote]

Wrong.  Shepard has the power to end it.  He refuses to do so, going against what was expected of him when he was given the task to begin with.  The Catalyst is to blame for the Reapers, Shepard is to blame for not stopping them.
[/quote]

Shepard HAS no power.  There is nothing Shepard can or can not do except as the Catalyst allows.  Even if Shepard rejects the Catalyst, the Catalyst CAN choose to stop reaping.

Thus who is to blame: The Catalyst.  This is pretty basic (western) ethical philosophy.

[quote]
[quote]Full Stop.  Failing to understand this basic point makes everything else you say irrelevant.  The idea of negative responisibility IS a moral premise.  You can not claim "logic or in game facts".  I deny negative responsibility.  You can not be held responsible not acting.  You refuse the Catalyst.  The Catalyst is not required to continue with a genocidal plan it admits no longer works, but does anyway.

Who is the blame?  The Catalyst.

-Polaris[/quote]

And Shepard is to blame for not activating the Crucible, condeming everyone to Reaperfication.  As I said, it's dereliction of duty at best, indirect mass murder at worst.  The Catalyst's bad behavior does not clean Shepard's hands if he fails to act at the last minute.  He's not doing his job, plain and simple, and in this case it has deadly consequences.  The unknown factor of the Crucible, and the possible rammifications of using a weapon they did not fully understand, had all been considered and deemed a necesarry risk long before.  If Shepard wasn't willing to follow through, then he shouldn't have gone on the mission.

[/quote]

No.  Shepard is only "to blame" for rejecting the Catalyst's offer.  That's it.  Full stop.  The CATALYST chooses to continue an action (Reaperfication) that he knows is fatally flawed and does not work.  The Catalyst could stop even after Shepard rejects it but CHOOSES not to. 

Thus the Catalyst is fully to blame.  Not Shepard.

-Polaris

[Geneaux486]

It is very clear the Catalyst turns off the crucible.  The ability to turn something off is the ultimate control over it.

That's a pretty arbitrary rule your assigning there.  I'd say the ultimate control would be the ability to use it, which the Catalyst can't.

The Catalyst DOES contradict it. The catalyst will tell you that the Reapers are HIS, they he controlls the reapers.  You are also told in control that you would replace the Catalyst and that is how you would control the Reapers.

The Catalyst's "control" could be limited enough to not contradict what Sovereign and Legion both said about Reaper independence, and since there's nothing to suggest that they are contradicted, this is the case.  Shepard gains control of the Reapers not by simply taking the Catalyst's place, but by broadcasting his will via the Crucible, something the Catalyst does not do.

If you can not depend on what the catalyst is saying to be true, then you can't use it as the basis of a moral decision.  Clearer?

When the only other option is death and worse, whether or not the Catalyst can be trusted is irrelevant.  Shepard's basically gotta sack up and pull the trigger.

The catalyst SAYS he can't use the crucible, but we have absolutely no reason to believe this is true, especially when we know he can turn it off.  Also the Catalyst is the one offering the so-called 'choices' and completely controls access to those choices.  That means the Catalyst not Shepard is the moral agent.

Except that if the Catalyst could use the Crucible, he'd have no reason to bring Shepard there.  Shepard is the moral agent, the Catalyst simply provides exposition.

Shepard HAS no power.  There is nothing Shepard can or can not do except as the Catalyst allows.  Even if Shepard rejects the Catalyst, the Catalyst CAN choose to stop reaping.

Thus who is to blame: The Catalyst.  This is pretty basic (western) ethical philosophy.

Shepard has the power to kill all of the Reapers at once, and the Catalyst makes no move to stop him if that's the path he chooses, even tells Shepard that the option exists.  As I said, the Catalyst is an objective AI, its nature forces it to submit to the Crucible.

No.  Shepard is only "to blame" for rejecting the Catalyst's offer.  That's it.  Full stop.  The CATALYST chooses to continue an action (Reaperfication) that he knows is fatally flawed and does not work.  The Catalyst could stop even after Shepard rejects it but CHOOSES not to. 

Thus the Catalyst is fully to blame.  Not Shepard.

-Polaris

We're not going to see eye to eye on this one.  In my opinion, Shepard is to blame for deliberately failing his objective, refusing to use his own weapon, and indirectly letting everyone be harvested.  It was his job, he didn't do it, he went against everyone's wishes, he let them down.  The blood is on the hands of Shepard and the Catalyst.  Furthermore, you have no idea whether or not the Catalyst can actively give commands to the Reapers.  He's implied to be more of a clockmaker anyway, he sets the gears in motion, and lets it run itself.  He may not have the ability to call them off.  In any case, what we're really debating here is what information Shepard has to work with when the time comes to make his decision, and it's pretty simple:  Orders are to activate the Crucible, not doing it results in a loss.  From the gamer perspective, after the fact, we know the Catalyst wasn't lying, as events unfold exactly as he said they would, and in the case of synthesis, everyone is better off (not that I'd still pick it).  Yes, it's meta-gaming, but it's a fictional story, not real life.  Point is, Shepard knows enough at that point to know that refusing to activate the Crucible is a bad decision.  If he makes said decision, he's at fault, it's his direct, concious action to walk away.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 03 juillet 2012 - 02:34 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Geneaux486 wrote...


[quote]It is very clear the Catalyst turns off the crucible.  The ability to turn something off is the ultimate control over it.[/quote]

That's a pretty arbitrary rule your assigning there.  I'd say the ultimate control would be the ability to use it, which the Catalyst can't.

[/quote]

Read DUNE, by Herbert.  It explains (and it's pretty accurate IRL too) that he who can destroy something effectively controls it.

[quote]


[quote]The Catalyst DOES contradict it. The catalyst will tell you that the Reapers are HIS, they he controlls the reapers.  You are also told in control that you would replace the Catalyst and that is how you would control the Reapers.[/quote]

The Catalyst's "control" could be limited enough to not contradict what Sovereign and Legion both said about Reaper independence, and since there's nothing to suggest that they are contradicted, this is the case.  Shepard gains control of the Reapers not by simply taking the Catalyst's place, but by broadcasting his will via the Crucible, something the Catalyst does not do.
[/quote]

You are wrong.  If you take the "lower" or "no" option of control, the Catalyst explicitly states that you would be taking it's place and that it does have complete control over the Reapers.  This is confirmed in both Paragon and Renegade Control endings. 


[quote]

[quote]If you can not depend on what the catalyst is saying to be true, then you can't use it as the basis of a moral decision.  Clearer?[/quote]
When the only other option is death and worse, whether or not the Catalyst can be trusted is irrelevant.  Shepard's basically gotta sack up and pull the trigger.
[/quote]

It is critically relevent.  If you don't know if the Catalyst is telling the truth then NOTHING it tells you can be used to form a moral decision.  It's that simple.  Really.


[quote]

[quote]The catalyst SAYS he can't use the crucible, but we have absolutely no reason to believe this is true, especially when we know he can turn it off.  Also the Catalyst is the one offering the so-called 'choices' and completely controls access to those choices.  That means the Catalyst not Shepard is the moral agent.[/quote]

Except that if the Catalyst could use the Crucible, he'd have no reason to bring Shepard there.  Shepard is the moral agent, the Catalyst simply provides exposition.
[/quote]

We already know the Catalyst is irrational.  That means you can not deduce it's logical reasoning (if any).  For whatever reason it wants Shepard to pull the actual trigger, but the game is entirely the Catalyst's.  Basically Shepard is attempted to be forced into a no-choice situation.  The problem is that no-choice situations are by definition non-moral ones.

[quote]
[quote]Shepard HAS no power.  There is nothing Shepard can or can not do except as the Catalyst allows.  Even if Shepard rejects the Catalyst, the Catalyst CAN choose to stop reaping.

Thus who is to blame: The Catalyst.  This is pretty basic (western) ethical philosophy.[/quote]

Shepard has the power to kill all of the Reapers at once, and the Catalyst makes no move to stop him if that's the path he chooses, even tells Shepard that the option exists.  As I said, the Catalyst is an objective AI, its nature forces it to submit to the Crucible.
[/quote]

No he doesn't.  Shepard only has the power to "shoot the tube" and ONLY if the catalyst allows it.  Who has the choice?  The Catalyst does.  Period.

[quote]
[quote]No.  Shepard is only "to blame" for rejecting the Catalyst's offer.  That's it.  Full stop.  The CATALYST chooses to continue an action (Reaperfication) that he knows is fatally flawed and does not work.  The Catalyst could stop even after Shepard rejects it but CHOOSES not to. 

Thus the Catalyst is fully to blame.  Not Shepard.

-Polaris [/quote]

We're not going to see eye to eye on this one.  In my opinion, Shepard is to blame for deliberately failing his objective, refusing to use his own weapon, and indirectly letting everyone be harvested.  It was his job, he didn't do it, he went against everyone's wishes, he let them down.  The blood is on the hands of Shepard and the Catalyst.  Furthermore, you have no idea whether or not the Catalyst can actively give commands to the Reapers.  He's implied to be more of a clockmaker anyway, he sets the gears in motion, and lets it run itself.  He may not have the ability to call them off.  In any case, what we're really debating here is what information Shepard has to work with when the time comes to make his decision, and it's pretty simple:  Orders are to activate the Crucible, not doing it results in a loss.  From the gamer perspective, after the fact, we know the Catalyst wasn't lying, as events unfold exactly as he said they would, and in the case of synthesis, everyone is better off (not that I'd still pick it).  Yes, it's meta-gaming, but it's a fictional story, not real life.  Point is, Shepard knows enough at that point to know that refusing to activate the Crucible is a bad decision.  If he makes said decision, he's at fault, it's his direct, concious action to walk away.[/quote]

You are wrong.  You can not hold a person accountable for the decisions of another.  The ULTIMATE decision to harvest did not belong to Shepard.  it belonged to the Catalyst.  End Stop.

-Polaris

[Geneaux486]

[quote]Read DUNE, by Herbert.  It explains (and it's pretty accurate IRL too) that he who can destroy something effectively controls it.[/quote]

Irrelevant to the fact that the Catalyst cannot use the Crucible.







[quote]You are wrong.  If you take the "lower" or "no" option of control, the Catalyst explicitly states that you would be taking it's place and that it does have complete control over the Reapers.  This is confirmed in both Paragon and Renegade Control endings.[/quote]

The key differences being that Shepard is visibly in direct control over the Reapers, whereas the Catalyst is never shown to be, and Shepard achieved that direct control by using the Crucible, which the Catalyst couldn't do.







[quote]It is critically relevent.  If you don't know if the Catalyst is telling the truth then NOTHING it tells you can be used to form a moral decision.  It's that simple.  Really.[/quote]

Incorrect.  You can still form a moral decision based on a combination of what the Catalyst tells you, what you know regarding the Crucible's origins (that your side built it), and the fact that there is no alternative.  To say that a moral decision can't be reached with those things in mind is simply false.  You're not just arguing that Refusal isn't a bad decision, you're arguing that using the Crucible at all is an immoral act when it isn't.  If you believe that Shepard cannot be held accountable for not using the Crucible because the Reapers are the ones harvesting everyone, then he cannot be held accountable for the use of the weapon either, as the Reapers necesitate such rash actions and Shepard was expected to do so regardless of the risks by everyone.  Using the Crucible is a leap of faith, not an immoral action.







[quote]We already know the Catalyst is irrational.[/quote]

How do you know that?







[quote]That means you can not deduce it's logical reasoning (if any).[/quote]

There's nothing to deduce.  It explains its logical reasoning up front.  The problem is that it's a very cold logic, resulting in a solution to a problem that ignores the value of the individual and has no regard for the pain and suffering caused by the cycle.







[quote]For whatever reason it wants Shepard to pull the actual trigger,[/quote]
 
Not for whatever reason, we know the reason.  The Crucible is superior to the Reapers, and has the potential to solve the rift between organic and synthetic life in a way the Reapers were unable to achieve.







[quote]but the game is entirely the Catalyst's.[/quote]

No it isn't.







[quote]Basically Shepard is attempted to be forced into a no-choice situation.  The problem is that no-choice situations are by definition non-moral ones.[/quote]

Except that's not what's happening.  Shepard has the opportunity to activate his weapon, in one of three ways.  All functions a result of the Crucible, which is of organic design and construction.  The Catalyst is merely cooperating, nothing more.  He doesn't control anything, in fact the opposite is the case, as his programming forces him to acknowlege the superior peice of tech when it presents itself, and he's forced to cooperate in its activation by his own programming, which compels him to find the best possible means for ensuring the continuity of organic life.  And if you don't believe he is telling the truth about this being his programming, his mission, then why believe him when he says he controls the Reapers even though he does not demonstrate this?  You argue that we know this because Shepard assumes control of the Reapers by using the Crucible, but that takes into account information that we don't have prior to the thing's activation, and if we factor that into our argument, then we know for a fact that control and synthesis both result in more positives than negatives, while destroy leaves everyone looking onto a sad, but hopeful future.  Except the Geth I mean.







[quote]No he doesn't.  Shepard only has the power to "shoot the tube" and ONLY if the catalyst allows it.  Who has the choice?  The Catalyst does.  Period.[/quote]

The Catalyst is bound by programming.  If it were capable of making a choice, do you honestly think it would willingly let Shepard kill it and its creations?  Yet it does.  The Crucible is responsible for the Catalyst's cooperation as much as it is for ending the Reaper threat.  In that sense, organics have the power.  Period.







[quote]You are wrong.  You can not hold a person accountable for the decisions of another.[/quote] 

Shepard is accountable for his own decision.  Nobody put a gun to his head and told him to forsake his mission and abandon his allies to torment and death, that's his personal decision, and that is what he is responsible for.


[quote]The ULTIMATE decision to harvest did not belong to Shepard.  it belonged to the Catalyst.  End Stop.
[/quote]

And the decision not to stop the harvest when he has the chance to and the entirety of his allies support it, when that is his mission from the start, belongs to Shepard.  That is where his responsibility lies, and that is why he shares in the blame for the resulting death and reaperfication.  Yield to oncoming traffic.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:34 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Geneaux486 wrote...



[quote]Read DUNE, by Herbert.  It explains (and it's pretty accurate IRL too) that he who can destroy something effectively controls it.[/quote]

Irrelevant to the fact that the Catalyst cannot use the Crucible.
[/quote]

Facts not in evidence.  The Catlyst will not use the crucible except to turn it off or grant access to it's panels but we have nothing other than it's word that it CAN not.  In fact the fact it CAN turn the crucible off and allow (or deny) access to various parts is strong evidence that the catalyst is lying.

[quote]



[quote]You are wrong.  If you take the "lower" or "no" option of control, the Catalyst explicitly states that you would be taking it's place and that it does have complete control over the Reapers.  This is confirmed in both Paragon and Renegade Control endings.[/quote]
The key differences being that Shepard is visibly in direct control over the Reapers, whereas the Catalyst is never shown to be, and Shepard achieved that direct control by using the Crucible, which the Catalyst couldn't do.
[/quote]

There is no difference.  You are told AND SHOWN that Shepard does in fact replace the catalyst and has total control of the reapers.  The Catalyst claims that he controls the reapers and by that claim takes moral responsibility for them.  You don't get this point.

[quote]



[quote]It is critically relevent.  If you don't know if the Catalyst is telling the truth then NOTHING it tells you can be used to form a moral decision.  It's that simple.  Really.[/quote]

Incorrect.  You can still form a moral decision based on a combination of what the Catalyst tells you, what you know regarding the Crucible's origins (that your side built it), and the fact that there is no alternative.  To say that a moral decision can't be reached with those things in mind is simply false.  You're not just arguing that Refusal isn't a bad decision, you're arguing that using the Crucible at all is an immoral act when it isn't.  If you believe that Shepard cannot be held accountable for not using the Crucible because the Reapers are the ones harvesting everyone, then he cannot be held accountable for the use of the weapon either, as the Reapers necesitate such rash actions and Shepard was expected to do so regardless of the risks by everyone.  Using the Crucible is a leap of faith, not an immoral action.
[/quote]

No, I am absolutely correct.  Actually a very strong argument can be made that agreeing to anything the Catalyst wants is immoral since it is the voice of the enemy (which is a proven liar) and thus is cooperating with that enemy.  The bottom line is, you can not accept as accurate ANYTHING the Catalyst says and because of that, the only moral choice you have is to agree to it's terms (and surrender to the enemy) or not.  That makes refusal the moral choice.

[quote]


[quote]We already know the Catalyst is irrational.
[/quote]How do we know that?
[/quote]

It's called listening.  The AI's though processesses are clearly and obviously irrational.  This should not be a matter of dispute.  It's a simple fact.

[quote]
There's nothing to deduce.  It explains its logical reasoning up front.  The problem is that it's a very cold logic, resulting in a solution to a problem that ignores the value of the individual and has no regard for the pain and suffering caused by the cycle.
[/quote]

There is nothing logical at all about the Catalyst.  It's broken and irrational.  Again a simple fact that was obvious from the start.

[quote]



[quote]For whatever reason it wants Shepard to pull the actual trigger,[/quote]

Not for whatever reason, we know the reason.  The Crucible is superior to the Reapers, and has the potential to solve the rift between organic and synthetic life in a way the Reapers were unable to achieve.
[/quote]

We know nothing of the kind.  You ARE ASSUMING things that never are introduced in the stroy or codex entries ANYWHERE.  Don't do that.

[quote]

No it isn't [game entirely the catalyst's].
[/quote]

Yes it is.  The Catalyst and only the catalyst controls whether the crucible is turned on, what access IF ANY Shepard has, and what information is given to shepard.  To say that the Catalyst is not in complete control is to completely watch a completely different scene.

[quote]



[quote]Basically Shepard is attempted to be forced into a no-choice situation.  The problem is that no-choice situations are by definition non-moral ones.[/quote]

Except that's not what's happening.  [/quote]

I am snipping the rest because it's redundant.  It's EXACTLY what is happening.  It was even worse prior to the EC where the Catalyst took the entire protagonist role away from shepard.  Basically Shepard only has one choice:

Do I cooperate with the catalyst (and believe it) or not.  Picking ANY of the Catalyst's three choices is cooperating with the enemy, and that's the bottom line.  That is the ONLY true moral choice Shepard has.  Everything else is detail.

[quote]



[quote]No he doesn't.  Shepard only has the power to "shoot the tube" and ONLY if the catalyst allows it.  Who has the choice?  The Catalyst does.  Period.[/quote]

The Catalyst is bound by programming.  If it were capable of making a choice, do you honestly think it would willingly let Shepard kill it and its creations?  Yet it does.  The Crucible is responsible for the Catalyst's cooperation as much as it is for ending the Reaper threat.  In that sense, organics have the power.  Period.
[/quote]

The Catalyst is NOT bound by it's programming. It's already changed it's programming once already (to make the Reaper solutionto start with).  If it were, it would not be an AI, but it clearly is.  That means the sole moral responsibility for reaping does NOT lie with Shepard (Refuse ending or no Refuse ending) but with the Catalyst.  Bottom line.


Editing...missed some.



[quote]


[quote]You are wrong.  You can not hold a person accountable for the decisions of another.[/quote] 

Shepard is accountable for his own decision.  Nobody put a gun to his head and told him to forsake his mission and abandon his allies to torment and death, that's his personal decision, and that is what he is responsible for.
[/quote]

Actually "putting a gun to his head" is pretty much what the Catalyst is trying to do.  Accept MY way of doing things or watch your friends die.  The Catalyst pretty much says exactly this if you start to question the destroy ending.  BECAUSE the Catalyst is putting Shepard under duress this way, it's not a valid moral decision by Shepard.  The responsibility lies with the Catalyst.

[quote]
[quote]The ULTIMATE decision to harvest did not belong to Shepard.  it belonged to the Catalyst.  End Stop.
[/quote]

And the decision not to stop the harvest when he has the chance to and the entirety of his allies support it, when that is his mission from the start, belongs to Shepard.  That is where his responsibility lies, and that is why he shares in the blame for the resulting death and reaperfication.  Yield to oncoming traffic.[/quote]
[/quote]

FALSE.  The Catalyst can stop Reaping when it admits it's solution no longer works anytime it wants to.  It chooses not to when Shepard won't cooperate.  Whose fault is that?  The Catalyst's.  Full stop.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:08 .

[Xilizhra]

And the decision not to stop the harvest when he has the chance to and the entirety of his allies support it, when that is his mission from the start, belongs to Shepard. That is where his responsibility lies, and that is why he shares in the blame for the resulting death and reaperfication. Yield to oncoming traffic.

You're talking about Refusal here, yes?

[XXIceColdXX]

I'll refuse all day if it means the next cycle doesn't have to through synthesis.

I like my Mass Effect universe as is, not some creepy green eyed hybrid existance. No thank you.

[IanPolaris]

Xilizhra wrote...

And the decision not to stop the harvest when he has the chance to and the entirety of his allies support it, when that is his mission from the start, belongs to Shepard. That is where his responsibility lies, and that is why he shares in the blame for the resulting death and reaperfication. Yield to oncoming traffic.

You're talking about Refusal here, yes?

He is, and my point is that if you don't believe/trust what the Catalyst is saying (and you have absolutely no reason to and plenty of reason not to) then you aren't in fact making that decision.  The Catalyst is.  In fact ultimately it's the Catalyst that chooses what happens no matter what Shepard 'decides' and that's a huge problem with the endings.....except for the Refusal ending.  That and that ending alone has Shepard making the actual moral choice (one way or the other).

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

XXIceColdXX wrote...

I'll refuse all day if it means the next cycle doesn't have to through synthesis.

I like my Mass Effect universe as is, not some creepy green eyed hybrid existance. No thank you.

It's no longer as is, just dead.

[IanPolaris]

Xilizhra wrote...

XXIceColdXX wrote...

I'll refuse all day if it means the next cycle doesn't have to through synthesis.

I like my Mass Effect universe as is, not some creepy green eyed hybrid existance. No thank you.

It's no longer as is, just dead.

No it's not.  Something always survives each cycle and Shepard knows this (it's not like Liara and others haven't told him this).

-Polaris

[XXIceColdXX]

Xilizhra wrote...

XXIceColdXX wrote...

I'll refuse all day if it means the next cycle doesn't have to through synthesis.

I like my Mass Effect universe as is, not some creepy green eyed hybrid existance. No thank you.

It's no longer as is, just dead.

And am happy with that. Synthesis in my opinion in an abomination. I prefer destroy as first pick as I can keep the universe 'as is' that way, all can be rebuilt.

I am happy to refuse if it means I don't have to inflict synthesis on the universe. It's complete nonsense.

Modifié par XXIceColdXX, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:13 .

[RiouHotaru]

IanPolaris wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And the decision not to stop the harvest when he has the chance to and the entirety of his allies support it, when that is his mission from the start, belongs to Shepard. That is where his responsibility lies, and that is why he shares in the blame for the resulting death and reaperfication. Yield to oncoming traffic.

You're talking about Refusal here, yes?

He is, and my point is that if you don't believe/trust what the Catalyst is saying (and you have absolutely no reason to and plenty of reason not to) then you aren't in fact making that decision.  The Catalyst is.  In fact ultimately it's the Catalyst that chooses what happens no matter what Shepard 'decides' and that's a huge problem with the endings.....except for the Refusal ending.  That and that ending alone has Shepard making the actual moral choice (one way or the other).

-Polaris

Did you see TAO's attempt to make people believe that Refusal was the only worthwhile option, and how she was utterly shot down?  Again, there are several reasons to believe the Catalyst isn't being deceitful or malicious.  The argument is simply thus:

"Do you believe the Catalyst?"

If Yes: Then the given options are valid.

If No: Then Refusal is valid.

BUT, whether you believe him or not is strictly personal preference.  There's no actual evidence of lying, and you can use the Crucible turning off because that's metagaming.  Based SOLELY on the information and circumstances he gives you prior to making a decision, do you believe him or not.  That's the sole factor.

[v TricKy v]

RiouHotaru wrote...


"Do you believe the Catalyst?"

If Yes: Then the given options are valid.

If No: Then Refusal is valid.

I dont understand why you needed several pages and multiple threads to finally understand the reasoning. People have different views on that.

End of discussion

[IanPolaris]

RiouHotaru wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And the decision not to stop the harvest when he has the chance to and the entirety of his allies support it, when that is his mission from the start, belongs to Shepard. That is where his responsibility lies, and that is why he shares in the blame for the resulting death and reaperfication. Yield to oncoming traffic.

You're talking about Refusal here, yes?

He is, and my point is that if you don't believe/trust what the Catalyst is saying (and you have absolutely no reason to and plenty of reason not to) then you aren't in fact making that decision.  The Catalyst is.  In fact ultimately it's the Catalyst that chooses what happens no matter what Shepard 'decides' and that's a huge problem with the endings.....except for the Refusal ending.  That and that ending alone has Shepard making the actual moral choice (one way or the other).

-Polaris

Did you see TAO's attempt to make people believe that Refusal was the only worthwhile option, and how she was utterly shot down?  Again, there are several reasons to believe the Catalyst isn't being deceitful or malicious.  The argument is simply thus:

"Do you believe the Catalyst?"

If Yes: Then the given options are valid.

If No: Then Refusal is valid.

BUT, whether you believe him or not is strictly personal preference.  There's no actual evidence of lying, and you can use the Crucible turning off because that's metagaming.  Based SOLELY on the information and circumstances he gives you prior to making a decision, do you believe him or not.  That's the sole factor.

TAO didn't know how to support his position is all.  The argument is a simplistic version of Pascal's Wager (arguing for the existance of a higher Diety). 

In the first place we know that the Catalyst is either the representative/gestalt of the Reapers or he is not.  If he is (which is what he claims), then we can not trust anything he says.  The Reapers have lied and deceived before when it was in their interests and we have no reason they won't do so here.  If he is not in fact the gestalt/representative of the Reapers, then he is lying about it and we obviously can't believe anything he says.

We also see the Catalyst is irrational. His own "logic" regarding the cycle proves it.  Any information coming from an irrational source is always suspect.

Given those two things ALONE, we can safely conclude that the Catalyst can't be trusted and Reject is valid on that basis alone.  Morever, the Catalyst is openly threatening your species (and he does so quite blatently if you question/disbuse that shooting the tube is the only way to destroy the reapers) to accept his and ONLY his solutions.  That's holding a gun to Shepard's head and that is even more reason not to do anything the Catalyst says.

-Polaris

[Sisterofshane]

Xilizhra wrote...

XXIceColdXX wrote...

I'll refuse all day if it means the next cycle doesn't have to through synthesis.

I like my Mass Effect universe as is, not some creepy green eyed hybrid existance. No thank you.

It's no longer as is, just dead.

Now, that depends upon exactly what you have chosen to fight for.

And it's clear that you can play a Shepard who is fighting for freedom from a predetermined cycle, and places value in everyone's right to self-determination.  If you believe that eventually someone will stop the Reapers on their own terms (and honestly, the catalyst hints at the fact that this might eventually be the outcome), then it might not be worth it to you to sacrifice ANY of your morals just for some desire to keep some semblance of the galaxy you are familiar with.

[CroGamer002]

In Synthesis every single race is effected.

In Reject it's every space-crafting race.



So, Synthesis is still far away from Reject.

[Geneaux486]

[quote]The Catlyst will not use the crucible except to turn it off or grant access to it's panels but we have nothing other than it's word that it CAN not.  In fact the fact it CAN turn the crucible off and allow (or deny) access to various parts is strong evidence that the catalyst is lying.[/quote]

No, if the Catalyst were capable of using the Cruicble, it would do so without Shepard.  Furthermore, we know after the Crucible's activation that the Catalyst was proven to be telling the truth about most of what it said, and proven to have been lying about nothing.






[quote]There is no difference.  You are told AND SHOWN that Shepard does in fact replace the catalyst and has total control of the reapers.  The Catalyst claims that he controls the reapers and by that claim takes moral responsibility for them.  You don't get this point.[/quote]

The difference is clear as day, as I pointed out.  Shepard had direct control over the Reapers after using the Crucible.  The Catalyst is unable to use the Crucible and demonstrates no direct control over the Reapers, he merely says he "controls" them, control over anything having various degrees.  Furthermore, why would you choose to trust that part of the Catalyst's speech but nothing else? 






[quote]No, I am absolutely correct.  Actually a very strong argument can be made that agreeing to anything the Catalyst wants is immoral since it is the voice of the enemy (which is a proven liar) and thus is cooperating with that enemy.  The bottom line is, you can not accept as accurate ANYTHING the Catalyst says and because of that, the only moral choice you have is to agree to it's terms (and surrender to the enemy) or not.  That makes refusal the moral choice.[/quote]

Again, as I said, the Catalyst's word alone is not all you have to go on. You also have the unanimous agreement of the Alliance that the use of the Crucible is the only alternative to extinction.  Using the Crucible is the moral decision, refusal, death and Reaperfication, is the only decision that involves surrender to the Reapers, as the other choices involve the Catalyst surrendering to you, as I've pointed out several times over now.  Furthermore, when have the Reapers ever lied to Shepard?  Let's look at the few times Shepard has directly spoken to a Reaper.  First, Sovereign.  What does he lie about?  He tells Shepard exactly what the Reapers plan to do.  Harbinger?  Same thing.  The Destroyer on Rannoch?  Again, it tells Shepard the truth.  So how can the Reapers be proven liars when every direct interaction with them involves them being brutally honest?  They can't, and they aren't.






[quote]It's called listening.  The AI's though processesses are clearly and obviously irrational.  This should not be a matter of dispute.  It's a simple fact.[/quote]

It's not a fact.  The Catalyst's logic is sound, and as I said, it's problem is that it's barbaric and focuses on the many while ignoring the value of the few.  Unless you've forgotten what the Reapers are composed of, you know that each race is, in fact, preserved in the way the Catalyst says they are.






[quote]There is nothing logical at all about the Catalyst.  It's broken and irrational.  Again a simple fact that was obvious from the start.[/quote]

Only if one picks and chooses which in-game facts to accept.  Going on the basis that the Mass Effect universe is as the narrative tells us it is, past and present, then yes, the Catalyst's logic is sound.  To reject certain aspects of it is to delve into headcanon, and we're not arguing headcanon here.






[quote]We know nothing of the kind.  You ARE ASSUMING things that never are introduced in the stroy or codex entries ANYWHERE.  Don't do that.[/quote]

Am I?  So the Catalyst never said "The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities."  It never said the Reapers tried to achieve synthesis and failed.  I guess it also never said "It also proves that my solution will no longer work."  Or "We find a new solution."  Yes, we do know, you're simply choosing not to accept it.






[quote]The Catalyst and only the catalyst controls whether the crucible is turned on, what access IF ANY Shepard has, and what information is given to shepard.  To say that the Catalyst is not in complete control is to completely watch a completely different scene.[/quote]

"[The Crucible] created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen."  If he doesn't control every aspect of the device then he is not in complete control. 






[quote]Do I cooperate with the catalyst (and believe it) or not.  Picking ANY of the Catalyst's three choices is cooperating with the enemy, and that's the bottom line.  That is the ONLY true moral choice Shepard has.  Everything else is detail.[/quote]

And as I said, the Catalyst is the one cooperating with you, not vice-versa.  As I've said, the Catalyst is bound to its objective, to ensure the continuity of organic life in the best possible way.  The Crucible plays on its objectivity, and forces it to accept the solutions presented there.  I know you think that's bull****, but we'll cover that a little further down.






[quote]The Catalyst is NOT bound by it's programming. It's already changed it's programming once already (to make the Reaper solutionto start with).  If it were, it would not be an AI, but it clearly is.  That means the sole moral responsibility for reaping does NOT lie with Shepard (Refuse ending or no Refuse ending) but with the Catalyst.  Bottom line.[/quote]

Again, you're picking and choosing what to acknowlege here.  The Catalyst is bound by its programming.  Why do you think it accepts the superiority of the Crucible and even helps Shepard to kill it and the Reapers if that's what Shepard chooses?  You say it changed its programming to make the Reapers, but that isn't the case.  The Catalyst was tasked with coming up with the best possible solution to the ever present threat of technological hubris resulting in hostile synthetics.  It deemed the Reaper solution to be the best it could come up with, so by initiating it, it was still holding to its original programming (which allowed for such actions, likely an oversight of its creators, it seems we'll learn more of that in the next DLC), as it does when it encounters the Crucible.






[quote]Actually "putting a gun to his head" is pretty much what the Catalyst is trying to do.  Accept MY way of doing things or watch your friends die.[/quote]

See my earlier points about the Catalyst being an objective AI focused only on finding the best solution to its given problem, and the fact that aiding in the Crucible's use is a gesture of cooperation.






[quote]The Catalyst can stop Reaping when it admits it's solution no longer works anytime it wants to.[/quote]

You have no idea whether or not this is true.






[quote] It chooses not to when Shepard won't cooperate.  Whose fault is that?  The Catalyst's.  Full stop.[/quote]

And who's fault is it that the mission fails and the Crucible isn't fired?  Shepard's.  That decision is still his, and he is still responsible for it.  No right turn on red, adjacent intersection may have right-of-way.






[quote]He is, and my point is that if you don't believe/trust what the Catalyst is saying (and you have absolutely no reason to and plenty of reason not to)[/quote]
 
And again, how much you trust the Catalyst is irrelevant.  The Crucible was always known to risk doing more harm than good, and everyone agreed that it should be activated.  Your allies suffered and died for the specific purpose of allowing its activation.  Shepard, by going on the mission to use the Crucible then refusing to do it, is committing a dishonest act.  That and the resulting Reaperfication are the reasons why Refuse is not a moral choice.






[quote]It's no longer as is, just dead.[/quote]

Not dead, preserved in Reaper form, which is worse.






[quote]No it's not.  Something always survives each cycle and Shepard knows this (it's not like Liara and others haven't told him this).[/quote]

This point falls into the same pitfall as the Catalyst, ignoring the value of the individual person, placing an importance on the greater good while devaluing the individual lives that are lost.






[quote]There's no actual evidence of lying, and you can use the Crucible turning off because that's metagaming.  Based SOLELY on the information and circumstances he gives you prior to making a decision, do you believe him or not.  That's the sole factor.[/quote]

I like this, it's short, it's too the point, and unlike my ramblings, it wastes no one's time.  Good on ya.






[quote]I dont understand why you needed several pages and multiple threads to finally understand the reasoning. People have different views on that.[/quote]

Yup.  Turns out trying to assign a definitive moral value to any of the choices leads to a lot of redundant drawn-out nonsense.  Want proof, read any of my posts XD
Even so, I regret nothing!






[quote]TAO didn't know how to support his position is all.[/quote]

"Her", first of all, and I've always found her to support her positions rather well, even though I disagree with them.






[quote]Now, that depends upon exactly what you have chosen to fight for.[/quote]

It really does, and even within the game mechanics Shepard's motivations can differ from player to player.

[quote]In Synthesis every single race is effected.

In Reject it's every space-crafting race.[/quote]

Devaluing the individual.  It is the exact reason why the Reapers' solution is horrible.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:04 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Geneaux486 wrote...



[quote]The Catlyst will not use the crucible except to turn it off or grant access to it's panels but we have nothing other than it's word that it CAN not.  In fact the fact it CAN turn the crucible off and allow (or deny) access to various parts is strong evidence that the catalyst is lying.[/quote]

No, if the Catalyst were capable of using the Cruicble, it would do so without Shepard.  Furthermore, we know after the Crucible's activation that the Catalyst was proven to be telling the truth about most of what it said, and proven to have been lying about nothing.

[/quote]

Facts not in evidence.  I agree the Catalyst WANTS Shepard to use the crucible, but that's not the same thing as saying the Catalyst can't use it.  We only have it's word on that, and it's word is completely unreliable.


[quote]



[quote]There is no difference.  You are told AND SHOWN that Shepard does in fact replace the catalyst and has total control of the reapers.  The Catalyst claims that he controls the reapers and by that claim takes moral responsibility for them.  You don't get this point.[/quote]

The difference is clear as day, as I pointed out.  Shepard had direct control over the Reapers after using the Crucible.  The Catalyst is unable to use the Crucible and demonstrates no direct control over the Reapers, he merely says he "controls" them, control over anything having various degrees.  Furthermore, why would you choose to trust that part of the Catalyst's speech but nothing else? 
[/quote]

You don't know that the Catalyst is unable to use the crucible.  Please stop confusing opinion and speculation for fact.  As for 'trusting' the catalyst in this point, I don't have to.  Either the AI is telling the truth or it's not.  If it is telling the truth, everything I said before applies.  If it's not, then it can't be trusted in any capacity anyway (and you shouldn't be doing what it says).

[quote]



[quote]No, I am absolutely correct.  Actually a very strong argument can be made that agreeing to anything the Catalyst wants is immoral since it is the voice of the enemy (which is a proven liar) and thus is cooperating with that enemy.  The bottom line is, you can not accept as accurate ANYTHING the Catalyst says and because of that, the only moral choice you have is to agree to it's terms (and surrender to the enemy) or not.  That makes refusal the moral choice.[/quote]
Again, as I said, the Catalyst's word alone is not all you have to go on. You also have the unanimous agreement of the Alliance that the use of the Crucible is the only alternative to extinction.  Using the Crucible is the moral decision, refusal, death and Reaperfication, is the only decision that involves surrender to the Reapers, as the other choices involve the Catalyst surrendering to you, as I've pointed out several times over now.  Furthermore, when have the Reapers ever lied to Shepard?  Let's look at the few times Shepard has directly spoken to a Reaper.  First, Sovereign.  What does he lie about?  He tells Shepard exactly what the Reapers plan to do.  Harbinger?  Same thing.  The Destroyer on Rannoch?  Again, it tells Shepard the truth.  So how can the Reapers be proven liars when every direct interaction with them involves them being brutally honest?  They can't, and they aren't.
[/quote]

No you don't have the Alliance's word or anyone elses.  The Alliance or anyone else doesn't have the critical information. That means they they can't be included in this discussion.  As far as anyone else knows, the Crucible is a big "off weapon" for the Reapers somehow.  You now know differently.  YOU have to act or not act with the enw information.  As for the Reaper examples you mention, they have no reason to lie to you in either scene.  Catalyst boy has plenty of reason to lie and we are shown over and over again, that when the Reapers have reason to, they will lie like rugs.


[quote]


[quote]It's called listening.  The AI's though processesses are clearly and obviously irrational.  This should not be a matter of dispute.  It's a simple fact.[/quote]

It's not a fact.  The Catalyst's logic is sound, and as I said, it's problem is that it's barbaric and focuses on the many while ignoring the value of the few.  Unless you've forgotten what the Reapers are composed of, you know that each race is, in fact, preserved in the way the Catalyst says they are.
[/quote]

Does "Yo Dog, I hear you need to be protected from synethetics, so we will destroy you so you don't get defeated by Synthetics" seem rational too you?  It's not and it's deliberately not.  Bioware is specifically presenting a deranged AI (similiar to DAVE in 2001 Space Odessey).  Treat it as irrational.  Do not trust it.

[quote]



[quote]There is nothing logical at all about the Catalyst.  It's broken and irrational.  Again a simple fact that was obvious from the start.[/quote]

Only if one picks and chooses which in-game facts to accept.  Going on the basis that the Mass Effect universe is as the narrative tells us it is, past and present, then yes, the Catalyst's logic is sound.  To reject certain aspects of it is to delve into headcanon, and we're not arguing headcanon here.
[/quote]

I am going by what the Catalyst is saying.  It is clearly (see above) clearly irrational and turned on it's own creators as a symptom of it.


[quote]


[quote]We know nothing of the kind.  You ARE ASSUMING things that never are introduced in the stroy or codex entries ANYWHERE.  Don't do that.[/quote]

Am I?  So the Catalyst never said "The Crucible changed me, created new possibilities."  It never said the Reapers tried to achieve synthesis and failed.  I guess it also never said "It also proves that my solution will no longer work."  Or "We find a new solution."  Yes, we do know, you're simply choosing not to accept it.
[/quote]

You can not take anything the Crucible says as fact.  End of story.



[quote]


[quote]The Catalyst and only the catalyst controls whether the crucible is turned on, what access IF ANY Shepard has, and what information is given to shepard.  To say that the Catalyst is not in complete control is to completely watch a completely different scene.[/quote]

"[The Crucible] created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen."  If he doesn't control every aspect of the device then he is not in complete control. 
[/quote]

And the Reapers (and by extension the Catalyst) are a bunch of liars.  You can not use anything he says as a basis to do anything.


[quote]



[quote]Do I cooperate with the catalyst (and believe it) or not.  Picking ANY of the Catalyst's three choices is cooperating with the enemy, and that's the bottom line.  That is the ONLY true moral choice Shepard has.  Everything else is detail.[/quote]

And as I said, the Catalyst is the one cooperating with you, not vice-versa.  As I've said, the Catalyst is bound to its objective, to ensure the continuity of organic life in the best possible way.  The Crucible plays on its objectivity, and forces it to accept the solutions presented there.  I know you think that's bull****, but we'll cover that a little further down.
[/quote]

That is what the Catalyst would like you to think.  Fact is, without the Catalyst's own actions the entire scene doesn't happen and the Catalyst determines what choices are and are not available.  That's not 'cooperating', it's running the whole damn show.

[quote]


[quote]The Catalyst is NOT bound by it's programming. It's already changed it's programming once already (to make the Reaper solutionto start with).  If it were, it would not be an AI, but it clearly is.  That means the sole moral responsibility for reaping does NOT lie with Shepard (Refuse ending or no Refuse ending) but with the Catalyst.  Bottom line.[/quote]

Again, you're picking and choosing what to acknowlege here.  The Catalyst is bound by its programming.  Why do you think it accepts the superiority of the Crucible and even helps Shepard to kill it and the Reapers if that's what Shepard chooses?  You say it changed its programming to make the Reapers, but that isn't the case.  The Catalyst was tasked with coming up with the best possible solution to the ever present threat of technological hubris resulting in hostile synthetics.  It deemed the Reaper solution to be the best it could come up with, so by initiating it, it was still holding to its original programming (which allowed for such actions, likely an oversight of its creators, it seems we'll learn more of that in the next DLC), as it does when it encounters the Crucible.
[/quote]

We KNOW at least one case where the Catalyst superceded it's programming.  That means it is NOT bound to it's programming whatever it might claim.  Ergo, it is a VALID MORAL AGENT and as such it and only it is responsible for Reaperfication.


[quote]



[quote]Actually "putting a gun to his head" is pretty much what the Catalyst is trying to do.  Accept MY way of doing things or watch your friends die.[/quote]

See my earlier points about the Catalyst being an objective AI focused only on finding the best solution to its given problem, and the fact that aiding in the Crucible's use is a gesture of cooperation.
[/quote]

The Catalyst is not objective.  It is in fact flawed and irrational.



[quote]



[quote]The Catalyst can stop Reaping when it admits it's solution no longer works anytime it wants to.[/quote]

You have no idea whether or not this is true.

[/quote]

It is an AI NOT a VI and it has changed it's programming before.  That means it can stop reaping.  Apparently it doesn't want to.

Edit missed more.  Hate these mammoth posts....



[quote]


[quote] It chooses not to when Shepard won't cooperate.  Whose fault is that?  The Catalyst's.  Full stop.[/quote]

And who's fault is it that the mission fails and the Crucible isn't fired?  Shepard's.  That decision is still his, and he is still responsible for it.  No right turn on red, adjacent intersection may have right-of-way.
[/quote]

Nope.  The Catalyst's.  It is the Catalyst that is control, not Shepard and even if Shepard won't cooperate, the Catalyst CAN choose to stop Reaping.  It doesn't.  Who's responsible?  The Catalyst.

You are NOT responsible for the decisions of another. 

[quote]


[quote]He is, and my point is that if you don't believe/trust what the Catalyst is saying (and you have absolutely no reason to and plenty of reason not to)[/quote] 
And again, how much you trust the Catalyst is irrelevant.  The Crucible was always known to risk doing more harm than good, and everyone agreed that it should be activated.  Your allies suffered and died for the specific purpose of allowing its activation.  Shepard, by going on the mission to use the Crucible then refusing to do it, is committing a dishonest act.  That and the resulting Reaperfication are the reasons why Refuse is not a moral choice.
[/quote]

If you don't trust the catalyst then you have no idea how to activate the crucible anyway and have no idea what it does.  Therefore you don't use it.





[quote]

[quote]It's no longer as is, just dead.[/quote]

Not dead, preserved in Reaper form, which is worse.
[/quote]

Yes, but if you refuse, then a future cycle will end the cycle forever without surrendering to the Reapers.



[quote]

[quote]No it's not.  Something always survives each cycle and Shepard knows this (it's not like Liara and others haven't told him this).[/quote]

This point falls into the same pitfall as the Catalyst, ignoring the value of the individual person, placing an importance on the greater good while devaluing the individual lives that are lost.
[/quote]

And Starbrat's solution 'pick a warcrime" doesn't?  At least by Refusing you are REFUSING to get your hands dirty.  If the Reapers/Catalyst CHOOSE to continue to do genocide that's their moral failing, not yours.




[quote]

[quote]There's no actual evidence of lying, and you can use the Crucible turning off because that's metagaming.  Based SOLELY on the information and circumstances he gives you prior to making a decision, do you believe him or not.  That's the sole factor.[/quote]

I like this, it's short, it's too the point, and unlike my ramblings, it wastes no one's time.  Good on ya.
[/quote]

Reapers and Reaper agents are known to be liars when it suits them.  The reason Reapers haven't lied to Shepard before is because there was literally no point in it.  That's not true for the Catalyst.


[quote]

[Snip]




[quote]TAO didn't know how to support his position is all.[/quote]

"Her", first of all, and I've always found her to support her positions rather well, even though I disagree with them.
[/quote]

Then defending against a Pascal's Wager argument should be fairly simple.  I won't comment futher on another thread.




[quote]


[quote]Now, that depends upon exactly what you have chosen to fight for.[/quote]

It really does, and even within the game mechanics Shepard's motivations can differ from player to player.
[/quote]

If shepard is fighting for freedom from the galaxy and really means "We will not sacrifice the soul of our species to do it (defeat the reapers), then Reject really is the only option."  Any other choice involves a hideous Warcrime and cooperation with the Reapers at some level.


[quote]
[quote]In Synthesis every single race is effected.

In Reject it's every space-crafting race.[/quote]

Devaluing the individual.  It is the exact reason why the Reapers' solution is horrible.[/quote]
[/quote]

And the Starbrat's choices don't?  Please.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:54 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Refusal is simply violation from view of meta-gamer, as on Shepard place after conversation with Catalyst you have no reason to believe AI which is responsibile for bilion years of genocide.
As a Shepard you must ask yourself if you would be fine with killing natural cause of life as evolution, without evolution we would be dead same as AI and with synthesis you manage to sterilize galaxy from evolution and differences.

If you were staying with Hitler on balcony in 1940 and ask him if it´s true that he is commiting genocide and he said it´s a lies ... would you be happy ? Exactly ... no because you didn´t see to his mind ...
If you would again staying on that balcony with knowlendge where he is leading whole Europe you would blow his head off - simply because it would safe lot of lifes.
Even from point of meta-game I am still not convinced from Catalyst flawed logic, his explanations are more like a minefield than as a truth.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:06 .

[xefiroEA]

There actually is evidence of the Catalyst lying. When you refuse his offer, his voice and demeanor changes completely. He uses a Harbingy voice to say "So be it". Clearly, his appearance and demeanor are a ruse to get you to trust it, and when it determines that it's pointless, he drops it immediately.

Perhaps calling it a lie is not exactly accurate. But he is certainly being dishonest by disguising it's true nature.

Also, and mentioning this because I keep asking people for their opinion but no one ever replies: When exactly does the Catalyst tell you to shoot the pipe, grab the handles or jump into the beam?

Modifié par xefiroEA, 03 juillet 2012 - 07:01 .

[Warbuckaz]

Shepard has no clue how to use the crucible and the Catalyst brings him to “trigger area” sort of speak and it activates the Crucible. So we a presented with four choices. If we go with the 4th – Refusal; that leaves the catalyst to perform one of three options on his own.

1) Destroy which the will never happen because why would the catalyst destroy itself? It also is the choice it explicitly disagrees with it due to the nature of non-synthetics nature to create synthetics an eventually war with them. It programming tells him no matter how much peace you create, the cycle will eventually repeat. So that nixed.

2) Control, which is an irrelevant choice because the catalyst already has control...

3) Synthesis which is also an irrelevant choice because the catalyst is unable to add itself to the stream. “And” it requires someone such as Shepard to make it work successfully.

The Catalyst is tasked with insuring younger species have a chance to thrive. They only way it know (whether it works or not) is to continue the cycle. So, that’s what it does.



So the ultimate determination comes down (I think) to whether or not you feel the catalyst is lying or not and/or if you think Reapers lie.

Since I’ve never had a Reaper lie to me I assumed those are my only options or...The cycle continues

[Xilizhra]

There actually is evidence of the Catalyst lying. When you refuse his offer, his voice and demeanor changes completely. He uses a Harbingy voice to say "So be it". Clearly, his appearance and demeanor are a ruse to get you to trust it, and when it determines that it's pointless, he drops it immediately.

I'd call that "tact," personally.

[Geneaux486]

[quote]Facts not in evidence.  I agree the Catalyst WANTS Shepard to use the crucible, but that's not the same thing as saying the Catalyst can't use it.  We only have it's word on that, and it's word is completely unreliable.[/quote]

Again, if we're going by what Shepard knows at the time, he has no idea whether or not the Catalyst is reliable.  If we're meta-gaming, we know for a fact that the Catalyst is reliable.



[quote]You don't know that the Catalyst is unable to use the crucible.  Please stop confusing opinion and speculation for fact.[/quote]

"I can't make them happen."  I am confusing nothing.



[quote]As for 'trusting' the catalyst in this point, I don't have to.  Either the AI is telling the truth or it's not.  If it is telling the truth, everything I said before applies.  If it's not, then it can't be trusted in any capacity anyway (and you shouldn't be doing what it says).[/quote]

By picking destroy, you're not doing what it says, you're doing what you promised to do, what everyone fought and died so that you could do. 



[quote]No you don't have the Alliance's word or anyone elses.  The Alliance or anyone else doesn't have the critical information That means they they can't be included in this discussion..[/quote]  

The Alliance knows that A) A convention victory is impossible, and That using the Crucible carries great risk, but is still worth it.  That's more than enough for them to be included in the discussion.  So yes, you have the Alliance's words and the words of their allies, the potential dangers of the Crucible are actually far less than the Alliance thought they'd be when decided it was worth the risk, and yes, they absolutely can be included in the discussion.



[quote]As far as anyone else knows, the Crucible is a big "off weapon" for the Reapers somehow.  You now know differently.  YOU have to act or not act with the enw information.[/quote]

The Destroy ending has negative side-effects, the Alliance assumed it very well could when decided it needed to be used.  Nothing fundamental changes there.  Shepard refusing to use the Crucible is dereliction of duty, plain and simple.



[quote]As for the Reaper examples you mention, they have no reason to lie to you in either scene.  Catalyst boy has plenty of reason to lie and we are shown over and over again, that when the Reapers have reason to, they will lie like rugs.[/quote]

The Catalyst has a reason to lie about Destroy being an option but he doesn't.  That's a point right off the bat in favor of believing him.



[quote]Does "Yo Dog, I hear you need to be protected from synethetics, so we will destroy you so you don't get defeated by Synthetics" seem rational too you?  It's not and it's deliberately not.  Bioware is specifically presenting a deranged AI (similiar to DAVE in 2001 Space Odessey).  Treat it as irrational.  Do not trust it.[/quote]

The "Yo dawg" joke is a complete misrepresentation of what happened, probably a deliberate one, for the purpose of structuring a joke.  It would not be as funny if they went with a more honest "Yo dawg, I heard you don't wanna be killed by Synthetics, so I put a system in place where roughly every 50,000 years advanced races will be harvested and converted into techno-organic hybrids, minds preserved, before they create technology beyond their own control and eliminate not only themselves, but cause collateral damage to more primitive races.", which is what the situation actually is.  You can't even argue that Bioware specifically presented it as irrational because you're demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of what the Reapers are even doing, even what they actually are, by summing it up as "synthetics kill you before you're killed by synthetics".  You don't even need to go by the Catalyst's words in the end to know that, and even though it's 100% confirmed in the Synthesis ending, you don't even need to meta-game to know it before then.  You see how they're made in the end of Mass Effect 2 , and dialogue with Legion tells you that the Geth percieved that the billions of organics minds form the conciousness of each Reaper when they touched the conciousness of Sovereign (though that is a semi-hidden peice of dialogue only accesible by doing certain mission out of order, I didn't hear it on my first few playthroughs of ME2 myself, so I'll give you some credit here).



[quote]I am going by what the Catalyst is saying.  It is clearly (see above) clearly irrational and turned on it's own creators as a symptom of it.[/quote]

No.  The Catalyst acted with cold, emotionless logic, not irrationality.



[quote]You can not take anything the Crucible says as fact.  End of story.[/quote]

Assuming you meant to say "Catalyst".  No worries, I made the same mistake myself a while back.  And you don't have to take it as fact to recognize that without the Crucible, you lose, while using it presents at least a glimmer of hope for victory.  As I've been saying from the start, even if you don't trust the Catalyst, using the Crucible means nothing to lose, everything to gain.



[quote]And the Reapers (and by extension the Catalyst) are a bunch of liars.  You can not use anything he says as a basis to do anything.[/quote]

So even though the Reapers are brutally honest with Shepard whenever they talk to him, and the Catalyst is not confirmed even post game to have told you a single lie, they're still liars because.. basically because you say so.  Not good enough for me.



[quote]That is what the Catalyst would like you to think.  Fact is, without the Catalyst's own actions the entire scene doesn't happen and the Catalyst determines what choices are and are not available.  That's not 'cooperating', it's running the whole damn show.[/quote]

Your EMS determines what choices are and are not available, and that's based on the efficiency with which your fleet gets the Crucible into place as well as the quality of the engineering crew that builds the thing.  The Catalyst is not involved in either of those processes.  The fact (and by that I mean actual fact, not your opinion-fact) is that the Catalyst acknowleges the Crucible's superior solutions and cooperates with Shepard in activating it, even if Shepard chooses to use it to destroy it and the Reapers.  Meta-gaming, yes, but since we're talking about what is and is not a fact within this story, we kinda need to.



[quote]We KNOW at least one case where the Catalyst superceded it's programming.[/quote]

No we don't.  It's programming was to determine and carry out the best possible solution that it can find.  That's exactly what it does.  As I said, it was most likely user-error.



[quote]The Catalyst is not objective.  It is in fact flawed and irrational.[/quote]

That's not what a fact is.  Again, we're going to go into meta-gaming mode here:  the endings we get from activating the Crucible prove to us that the Catalyst was being honest with you whenever we're confirmed of it one way or another.  It would not help Shepard destroy the Reapers if its programming wasn't being manipulated by the superiority of the Crucible.  It helps Shepard take an action that not only directly kills it, but also causes it to fail its previous mission.  That is the Catalyst being objective.

[quote]Nope.  The Catalyst's.  It is the Catalyst that is control, not Shepard and even if Shepard won't cooperate, the Catalyst CAN choose to stop Reaping.  It doesn't.  Who's responsible?  The Catalyst.

You are NOT responsible for the decisions of another.[/quote]

And again, there is nothing to suggest that the Catalyst can stop the Reapers suddenly, and everything (including the words of Sovereign, corroborated by Legion) to suggest that he can't.  The Catalyst is responsible for the creation of the Reapers and their cycle, and the ensuing death and destruction.  Shepard is still completely responsible for his concious decision to refuse to use the Crucible and fail his mission.  



[quote]If you don't trust the catalyst then you have no idea how to activate the crucible anyway and have no idea what it does.  Therefore you don't use it.[/quote]

I missed the dialogue where the Catalyst says "Shoot the tube".  All I see is a vision of Anderson shooting the reactor thing, and we don't even know whether it's a vision shown to the player or to Shepard himself.  Either way, we have no proof that the Catalyst is responsible for this vision.  



[quote]Yes, but if you refuse, then a future cycle will end the cycle forever without surrendering to the Reapers.[/quote]

Yep, probably by using the Crucible.  I'll have to go back and rewatch the Stargazer scene to remind myself whether it's just heavily implied that they used the Crucible or outright confirmed.



[quote]And Starbrat's solution 'pick a warcrime" doesn't?  At least by Refusing you are REFUSING to get your hands dirty.  If the Reapers/Catalyst CHOOSE to continue to do genocide that's their moral failing, not yours.[/quote]

'Fraid not, homeslice, you're dirtying your hands by picking Refuse as well, seeing as how in this case, inaction is just as bad as action.  Disobeying direct orders, deliberately failing a mission, pissing away the sacrifices of many to get you to that point, yes, that absolutely dirties Shepard's hands.



[quote]Reapers and Reaper agents are known to be liars when it suits them.  The reason Reapers haven't lied to Shepard before is because there was literally no point in it.  That's not true for the Catalyst.[/quote]

And again, the Catalyst tells you how to kill it and the Reapers.



[quote]Then defending against a Pascal's Wager argument should be fairly simple.  I won't comment futher on another thread.[/quote]

I haven't even seen the thread, I'm just going by what I've observed from The Angry One in the past, that being that her arguments are pretty well put together.



[quote]If shepard is fighting for freedom from the galaxy and really means "We will not sacrifice the soul of our species to do it (defeat the reapers), then Reject really is the only option."  Any other choice involves a hideous Warcrime and cooperation with the Reapers at some level.[/quote]

Everyone literally becomes Reapers in Refusal,. so this is assbackwards right out of the gate.  My Shepard was fighting for the freedom of the innocent, the sanctity of life, and the value of each individual person, so he chose control, becoming the warden of the Reapers and leaving the innocent to continue their lives on their own terms, offering the services of the Reapers only when requested to do so.



[quote]And the Starbrat's choices don't?  Please.[/quote]

Did I say that?  Or did I say the exact opposite?  Actually this is a bad thread for rhetorical questions so I'll go ahead and specify that I did, in fact, say the exact opposite.  Bridge may ice in cold weather.



[quote]When you refuse his offer, his voice and demeanor changes completely.[/quote]

I think we could all safely assume before this happened that the Catalyst hadn't been designed by an ancient cuttlefish-looking species to take on the appearance and voice of a small human child who would be born and die billions of years later.  It's not a lie as his change in voice doesn't contradict anything he's told you before.


Basically, going back to my original point, the choice of activating the Crucible or not is simply a "Nothing to lose, everything to gain" scenario, backed by direct orders from your superiors resulting from a decision they reached after observing the war directly for an extended period of time.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 03 juillet 2012 - 10:24 .