406 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

mass perfection wrote...

Can't tell if troll or just stupid...

This.

[Sisterofshane]

You can't violate someone by not doing something.

Is it morally right to not get involved when the outcome will mean certain death? That is for you to decide for yourself.

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

They agreed to fight, yes.  Did they agree to die if Shepard decided that the options allowed via the Crucible's creation and use weren't what Shepard wanted?

Refusal is Shepard holding to a moral principle and deciding that not making the decision not to choose is better than choosing.  At no point does anyone else get to chime in and go "But uhh...Shepard you could just pick this option."

They agreed to fight the Reapers. Dying for that cause is implicit in that agreement.
They did not agree to capitulate to the Reaper's demands. The Geth did not agree to be sacrificed for the rest. They did not agree for Shepard to become the God of the Galaxy, and they sure as hell did not agree to be remade in the image of the Reapers.
Every one of these decisions betrays the people of the galaxy in some way, synthesis far more so than the others.

As for the last sentence, well, the Crucible gets used anyway.  How it gets used is entirely up to headcanon.

I prefer to headcanon that it isn't used at all. Logically a galaxy with a massive head start and a built up fleet would annihilate the Reapers.

[Baronesa]

RiouHotaru wrote...

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)

Point B is also fine, but even without meta-gaming it doesn't always make sense.

and Point C is contentous because at only one point in ME3 is a Third Option available (Geth/Quarian War).

I clearly remember EDI lying to you... "That was a joke"

Nothing makes impossible for an AI to lie to you, the fact that the "true voice" of the Catalyst appears in the "SO BE IT" clearly shows that it is hidding something... It also use euphemisms to mask it's actions and make them look more palatable. AKA a lie.

And point C... go back to Mass Effect 1 and 2... being defiant at the face of adversity is what made Shepard.

[RiouHotaru]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

... and when Shep asks him "are you just an AI", he's saying "as much as you just an animal". Presumably this means he's very advanced and probably has "lie" function.

Well, remember, he states that he's "The collective intelligence of the Reapers", so to simplify and say that he's "Just an AI" would the same as saying a human being is "just an animal".

[saracen16]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

... and when Shep asks him "are you just an AI", he's saying "as much as you just an animal". Presumably this means he's very advanced and probably has "lie" function.

No, he's just being pissy about it.

[Taboo]

Nice fallacy OP.

LOL

[wantedman dan]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nice fallacy OP.

LOL

Non-sequiturs are almost becoming an artform.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

The Angry One wrote...
I prefer to headcanon that it isn't used at all. Logically a galaxy with a massive head start and a built up fleet would annihilate the Reapers.

Or, like Archengeia suggested in his review, just hit them in dark space while they are hibernating and vulnerable.

[Lordofn00bs]

I don't think most citizens of the galaxy want Shepard to be the space police either so....

Modifié par Lordofn00bs, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:15 .

[RiouHotaru]

Sisterofshane wrote...

You can't violate someone by not doing something.

Is it morally right to not get involved when the outcome will mean certain death? That is for you to decide for yourself.

In a sense, you can.  Standing by and doing nothing is sometimes AS bad as taking action.  Remember in our legal system, if I stand by and do nothing while someone is murdered in front of me and it's clear I could've taken action, I'm as guilty as the killer is.  It's called "accessory".

[Wulfram]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Depending upon where you stand it's equal.  Since you had the power to do something and chose not to.

But I need context to determine how this applies to the current argument.

Synthesis can be seen as a sin of comission.  You're taking an action that imposes it on everyone.

Refusal can be seen as a sin of omission.  You're allowing the Reapers to destroy life, but you aren't doing it yourself.

Some peoples moral codes hold that sins of commission are worse than omission.  I don't, not really.  Though to take a classic thought experiment, I'm not sure I'd push a fat man into the way of an out of control trolley to save the lives of five people further down the track - it feels wrong even if intellectually I might agree with it.

Modifié par Wulfram, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:17 .

[dreaming_raithe]

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.

This is ultimately why I chose it. Destroy was a close second for my Shepard (I have others that probably won't get through ME3), but she spent the second major arc recognizing the geth as sapient and making EDI "feel alive."

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

RiouHotaru wrote...
In a sense, you can.  Standing by and doing nothing is sometimes AS bad as taking action.  Remember in our legal system, if I stand by and do nothing while someone is murdered in front of me and it's clear I could've taken action, I'm as guilty as the killer is.  It's called "accessory".

Dont bring legal system to it.
I'd like you to stand in court and say "I killed this person, because badass criminal threatened me to kill all my family otherwise".

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:17 .

[Jamie9]

To pick Refusal is stupid.

I mean, I do like the Refusal ending. The scene with the capsule is nice and one I always envisioned.

But to doom trillions of lives needlessly (you DO know you will lose in a conventional battle. No need for metagaming.) It's the most immoral thing you could possibly do.

[guacamayus]

Refusal is the stupidest option, it takes a moral stand and everything but it's just wrong... when all life in the galaxy is on your hands it's time to make the difficult choices few can, trying to keep your hands clean while everyone else dies sounds incredibly selfish to me.

[RiouHotaru]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nice fallacy OP.

LOL

Nope.

As stated earlier, every ending choice is Shepard choosing for everyone else, to some extent or another.

However, in the Destroy/Control/Synthesis, the races of the current cycle fighting the Reapers are around to appreciate the choice (with the exception of the Geth/EDI in Destroy).

In Refusal, they aren't.  Choosing to do nothing is still making a choice.

[ThatDancingTurian]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Aris Ravenstar wrote...

Refusal as an option only makes sense if you headcanon out BioWare's insult wherein Shepard just stands there like a moron. If Shepard had tried to find an alternative way to use the Crucible aside from the options presented by the evil Reaper overlord, then it would be far more acceptable.

In this scenario, Shepard would have done everything in his/her power to stop the Reaper threat (one can argue that without meta-gaming information, blindly following the direction from a Reaper consensus posing as a child does not count as a viable option as it could very easily be a trick), which is the duty entrusted in him/her by the people.

The ability to change the DNA of all life was not a duty Shepard was entrusted with in any scenario.

Actually, the ability to do is WAS entrusted to Shepard:

Enjou wrote...
The endings aren't about democracy, they are about one man/woman having to make the hard choices and deciding the fate of the galaxy.

 

And there you have it.

I'm sorry, no, nowhere was it discussed previously that Shepard was given consent to fundamentally change all life to suit the whims of the Reaper overlord. Shepard holds the fate over the life and death of the fleet, not over life and a fate worse than death.

Synthesis is the same as volunteering everyone in that fleet for surrender for Reaperfication. You're changing them without their consent.

Modifié par Aris Ravenstar, 01 juillet 2012 - 12:18 .

[The Angry One]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Nice fallacy OP.

LOL

Nope.

As stated earlier, every ending choice is Shepard choosing for everyone else, to some extent or another.

However, in the Destroy/Control/Synthesis, the races of the current cycle fighting the Reapers are around to appreciate the choice (with the exception of the Geth/EDI in Destroy).

In Refusal, they aren't.  Choosing to do nothing is still making a choice.

You miss the point. Shepard is choosing to fight the Catalyst. To fight the Reapers.
This is something everyone ALREADY CHOSE. The Crucible was part of it because they thought it was a weapon to be used against the Reapers, not a Reaper tool to further their agenda.

[RiouHotaru]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...
In a sense, you can.  Standing by and doing nothing is sometimes AS bad as taking action.  Remember in our legal system, if I stand by and do nothing while someone is murdered in front of me and it's clear I could've taken action, I'm as guilty as the killer is.  It's called "accessory".

Dont bring legal system to it.
I'd like you to stand in court and say "I killed this person, because badass criminal threatened me to kill all my family otherwise".

Actually, that IS usually a sound defense.  If someone holds my family hostage and tells me "Kill this man or I'll kill your family" and I kill the man, the courts are pretty darn lenient.  I'll likely still get jail-time for killing the man, but it's not the same as an actual murder.

[Jamie9]

Aris Ravenstar wrote...
I'm sorry, no, nowhere was it discussed previously that Shepard was given consent to change all life. Shepard holds the fate over the life and death of the fleet, not over life and a fate worse than death.

How is synthesis a "fate worse than death"?

[AlduinTheWorldNommer]

Synthesis...oh god.

[wantedman dan]

Jamie9 wrote...

It's the most immoral thing you could possibly do.

What? How?

[The Angry One]

Jamie9 wrote...

Aris Ravenstar wrote...
I'm sorry, no, nowhere was it discussed previously that Shepard was given consent to change all life. Shepard holds the fate over the life and death of the fleet, not over life and a fate worse than death.

How is synthesis a "fate worse than death"?

Being remade into the image of the Reapers would be for many, it would be for Javik. Yet... Javik just stands there perfectly docile. Which means they're being brainwashed too.
Very much a fate worse than death, a nightmare utopia.

[RiouHotaru]

The Angry One wrote...

You miss the point. Shepard is choosing to fight the Catalyst. To fight the Reapers.
This is something everyone ALREADY CHOSE. The Crucible was part of it because they thought it was a weapon to be used against the Reapers, not a Reaper tool to further their agenda.

But that assumes the Crucible is a part of their agenda.  The Catalyst explicitly states that it isn't.  He even states that he believed the Crucible was gone, because he thought the concept was "eradicated".  It can't be a part of their agenda if he wanted to get rid of it.