467 réponses à ce sujet

[Batnat]

Wayning_Star wrote...

we and us refers to the catalysts creators, who stil lurk within it's presence. You know, from the game it's self what the catalylst is as soon as you make the area in which it resides. I did, I didn't need any further explanation as to it's identity. What it says is only like a recording, replayed over a looooong time, but this time it had the crucible 'plugged into' its "matrix". We don't/can't know what that means of course,becaus we are not the actual builders of either, the actual battle is between them and the catalyst, we are only collateral damage to them.. That is the undertow I keep seeing through out the trilogy. Starting with Shep getting tagged by that first pylon gizmo. Tipped off, but why Shepard? It's one reason why I rejected the olive branch of the jump off the roof choice donated by the writers at Bioware as an easier out for them and those that would not care to take other choices.

Its logic and explanations are still flawed, to put it mildly.
But I also didn´t need further explanations...either one believes it or doesn´t, there´re are no guaranties either way before experiencing the outcome...and even then I´m a still a tad bit suspicious. 

As for the "olive branch" ...I´m just happy I have another option...the more varying endings the better. This way all my Sheps will get their turn at seeing ME3...after the immersion getting a bit iffy for certain character builds during parts of the game...now at least most of them can have a fitting ending...not like after the original ending, when I wondered if I should even bother importing another Shep. That was really depressing...

[Wayning_Star]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yeah, uh war and idealism don't mix.

Someone is going to die and people are going to suffer.

Nothing is more of a moral failing than Refuse.

I would sooner kill one race to save them all than to kill everyone to satisfy MY beliefs.

Refuse is a colossal full retard position.

actually, wars are started on some form of 'idealism'. It's just that one side or the other disagrees as to what 'idealism' is "the" idealism to follow... just say'n

[OmegaXI]

3DandBeyond wrote...


You missed the part about not metagaming.  If you don't understand that it means from Shepard's point of view.  As Shepard (as if you only know what Shepard knows when Shep knows it), you have no idea that refuse condemns everyone.

And explain to me what makes life worth living (what kind of life is acceptable) and just who in your life would you allow to make decisions for you if you are consciously able to make those decisions for yourself. 

In control, the problem still exists and there's no way it's believable this is a good thing.  Is life really worth living if the things that "ate" your family are now your overseers?
In synthesis we have no idea what has been done to people really.  Shepard doesn't ask enough questions about it to understand how lives are changed.  But no one ever said that was ok to do to them, so Shepard alone is deciding their fate.  Shepard could try and discuss it even with Hackett, but doesn't.
Destroy is quite literally genocide.  Those killed aren't casualties of war.  They are targeted for extermination.  And putting a higher value on one life over another is wrong.

So, Shepard can opt out.  Shepard is not forced to make an awful choice as in your example.  People can still fight.  They may not win, but they will stand up defiant against the enemy and not crawl and bow down and do what the enemy wants.

 to quote Bill Madison

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Also I would like to include this definition for you

 contradiction:  consisting of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Illustrating a general tendency in applied logic, Aristotle's law of noncontradiction states that "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

If you seriously believe all you said, I feel a marginal sense of pity for you.

Why because I was playing a game or 3 games that featured a hero that did the impossible and didn't buy that things were inevitable and then was turned into an idiot at the end?  You pity me for actually thinking that this game would be in the same "universe" as ME1 and 2 and wouldn't veer off into the silly and some sadistic fantasy land.  Yes, I'm sure when you were playing ME1 and 2 and then 3, you hoped at the end the game would end with a conversation with a crazy AI who would ask you to help him fulfill his purpose, and that you would do that.  Sure you did.

How many people in ME2 said there was no chance of returning, or that there was no way they could achieve their goal? The number hovers around zero. Everything knew the odds were bad and were prepared for the worst. The odds were never impossible.

[Taboo]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yeah, uh war and idealism don't mix.

Someone is going to die and people are going to suffer.

Nothing is more of a moral failing than Refuse.

I would sooner kill one race to save them all than to kill everyone to satisfy MY beliefs.

Refuse is a colossal full retard position.

actually, wars are started on some form of 'idealism'. It's just that one side or the other disagrees as to what 'idealism' is "the" idealism to follow... just say'n

Idealism IN war is the issue.

I said nothing of what causes it.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

It's not "some would say impossible." Nobody believes you can win conventionally, and you have NO reason to believe you can. This isn't like the Suicide Mission.  I am not going to get into the conventional victory thing much, except to say reiterate my sentence:

If you choose Refuse knowing that the entire galaxy will be annihilated as a result, then it means you are unwilling to sacrifice what one of the three endings requires as an alternative to total annihilation. That makes you either a coward or someone who believes that doing harm to others must be prevented at all costs, even the extermination of many more lives.

If you choose Refuse thinking you can win, then that makes you delusional in the opinion of the characters in the game and the very writers of the universe. Word of God is that you can't win without the Crucible. Claiming otherwise is just throwing a hissy fit.

A coward is someone who chooses to make someone or everyone pay a price merely for survival.  It's not deciding that even dying is preferable to living under the enemy's terms. 

And I'm so glad that people are really acting like mature individuals here.  It's bad writing that made the crucible as it is necessary.  That's not my fault. 

Many have faced certain death head on quite willingly if the price for survival is too high.  It's my opinion it is.  And I'm not calling you names because you think otherwise.  But when one can't back up their assertions with real respectible dialogue and discussion, they use insults.  I see it a lot here. 

[KotorEffect3]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yeah, uh war and idealism don't mix.

Someone is going to die and people are going to suffer.

Nothing is more of a moral failing than Refuse.

I would sooner kill one race to save them all than to kill everyone to satisfy MY beliefs.

Refuse is a colossal full retard position.

Don't always agree with you but you are right about this.

[Taboo]

Shepard does not know he is going to live in Destroy. He walks right into the explosion.

If anything, I'd say shoot the pipe and hope for the best. No one else has to suffer at this point. It's all over.

One last, final, disgusting act, ends it for ALL life.

And that is why Destroy will ALWAYS be better than Refuse.

[Wayning_Star]

Batnat wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

we and us refers to the catalysts creators, who stil lurk within it's presence. You know, from the game it's self what the catalylst is as soon as you make the area in which it resides. I did, I didn't need any further explanation as to it's identity. What it says is only like a recording, replayed over a looooong time, but this time it had the crucible 'plugged into' its "matrix". We don't/can't know what that means of course,becaus we are not the actual builders of either, the actual battle is between them and the catalyst, we are only collateral damage to them.. That is the undertow I keep seeing through out the trilogy. Starting with Shep getting tagged by that first pylon gizmo. Tipped off, but why Shepard? It's one reason why I rejected the olive branch of the jump off the roof choice donated by the writers at Bioware as an easier out for them and those that would not care to take other choices.

Its logic and explanations are still flawed, to put it mildly.
But I also didn´t need further explanations...either one believes it or doesn´t, there´re are no guaranties either way before experiencing the outcome...and even then I´m a still a tad bit suspicious. 

As for the "olive branch" ...I´m just happy I have another option...the more varying endings the better. This way all my Sheps will get their turn at seeing ME3...after the immersion getting a bit iffy for certain character builds during parts of the game...now at least most of them can have a fitting ending...not like after the original ending, when I wondered if I should even bother importing another Shep. That was really depressing...

what I'm trying to get at with the catalyst is that our 'beliefs' are of no consequence. It doen't even care if we believe it or not. It merely,as a programmed machine, presents the crucible choices. It's on top of the game in it's narrow view and the crucible/original creators are banking on that for their purposes of the crucible. We're just "the help".. That's why I keep seeing the Wizard of Oz working levers'n dials, but cannot quite figure out where the curtain is to pull back to fully expose the little bugger..lol

I don't like that option cause it seems futile. The game later explains that everything turned out OK with the next in the cycle and they used the crucible and everything is OK for... Them. grumble grumble.. lol It's like admitting defeat I guess for me and not a fitting ending for Shep who's so beat down in the end game. Then the other choices are personna non grata, so I just jumped into the beam and gave the catalyst the finger of fate...say, wait'll yah get a load me you little parasite..lol (not really, I'm being dramatic I'd rather jump in than jump off, I guess.

[incinerator950]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yeah, uh war and idealism don't mix.

Someone is going to die and people are going to suffer.

Nothing is more of a moral failing than Refuse.

I would sooner kill one race to save them all than to kill everyone to satisfy MY beliefs.

Refuse is a colossal full retard position.

actually, wars are started on some form of 'idealism'. It's just that one side or the other disagrees as to what 'idealism' is "the" idealism to follow... just say'n

Idealism IN war is the issue.

I said nothing of what causes it.

Most wars are started because of control of monetary wealth, land, or resources.  Heh, Control.

[Batnat]

xsdob wrote...

This is turning into more of a religious war than anything else.

I plan to make 4 playthroughs where I pick all 4 endings, because I liked them all for different reasons, even synthesis. I like destroy because it is a alright end to a war with the reapers and shepard lives. I like control because the trope of the hero using evil or dark powers for good is one of my favorites. I like synthesis becasue of the prospect of bringing about a new age of life and peace interest me and none of the people seem to be mentally lobotomized. And I like refuse because it is a nice defiance act and allows our cycle to help the next one just like the protheans did for us, seems like a nice way to tie things together and stick to lore to defeat them.

So, what's the problem of letting people just like the ending that they like again, other than an ego trip?

I like the way you think.
I wouldn´t choose certain options in real life, but I´m glad for the varying options in the game. Different endings for different Sheps.
Though I do still miss the "happy" one without loosing Geth/EDI and a tiny little reunion...I cannot lie.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

If you seriously believe all you said, I feel a marginal sense of pity for you.

Why because I was playing a game or 3 games that featured a hero that did the impossible and didn't buy that things were inevitable and then was turned into an idiot at the end?  You pity me for actually thinking that this game would be in the same "universe" as ME1 and 2 and wouldn't veer off into the silly and some sadistic fantasy land.  Yes, I'm sure when you were playing ME1 and 2 and then 3, you hoped at the end the game would end with a conversation with a crazy AI who would ask you to help him fulfill his purpose, and that you would do that.  Sure you did.

How many people in ME2 said there was no chance of returning, or that there was no way they could achieve their goal? The number hovers around zero. Everything knew the odds were bad and were prepared for the worst. The odds were never impossible.

Do the words Suicide Mission mean nothing to you.  Miranda did and
Shepard said she planned on coming back-Joker said he was glad Shepard
was in charge.  Play the games again.  Every meaningful challenge was
impossible.  How many times in ME1 did Hackett tell Shepard he never
thought Shepard would pull off some mission-too many for me to remember
right now.

Shepard even coming back from the dead was impossible. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 30 juillet 2012 - 07:05 .

[Wayning_Star]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shepard does not know he is going to live in Destroy. He walks right into the explosion.

If anything, I'd say shoot the pipe and hope for the best. No one else has to suffer at this point. It's all over.

One last, final, disgusting act, ends it for ALL life.

And that is why Destroy will ALWAYS be better than Refuse.

I have to disagree there Taboo, it's like refusal with a touch of defiance, but  I couldn't do that to EDI and Legion,who really worked hard to understand its/his creators, EDI who just wants to be human, for some weird reason...boy is she in for a rush..lol

[Reorte]

3DandBeyond wrote...

A coward is someone who chooses to make someone or everyone pay a price merely for survival.  It's not deciding that even dying is preferable to living under the enemy's terms. 

And I'm so glad that people are really acting like mature individuals here.  It's bad writing that made the crucible as it is necessary.  That's not my fault. 

Many have faced certain death head on quite willingly if the price for survival is too high.  It's my opinion it is.  And I'm not calling you names because you think otherwise.  But when one can't back up their assertions with real respectible dialogue and discussion, they use insults.  I see it a lot here. 

The price Shepard pays, or the price everyone pays? It is cowardly to avoid making a hard decision because you don't like the immediate implications of it. A coward may well end up standing on top of a pile of corpses whilst being able to say "I didn't kill them" when the alternative was a single outright murder.

A responsible Shepard should chose the least bad option and Refuse is only that if he honestly believes that it will result in fewer casualties than Destroy. There is very little reason to think that that's the case. All endings are crap, all you can do is pick the least bad. Whether the blood is directly on your hands or indirectly is irrelevent. The dead are dead regardless.

Modifié par Reorte, 30 juillet 2012 - 07:09 .

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

A coward is someone who chooses to make someone or everyone pay a price merely for survival.  It's not deciding that even dying is preferable to living under the enemy's terms. 

And I'm so glad that people are really acting like mature individuals here.  It's bad writing that made the crucible as it is necessary.  That's not my fault. 

Many have faced certain death head on quite willingly if the price for survival is too high.  It's my opinion it is.  And I'm not calling you names because you think otherwise.  But when one can't back up their assertions with real respectible dialogue and discussion, they use insults.  I see it a lot here. 

I really was not trying to call you names. I know from your other posts that you fall into the "Kant" category and not necessarily the coward category. Perhaps delusional was too strong, but if you substitute it for another word I think the point still stands.

As for your definition of coward, I think very few people would agree that it is a suitable definition. You also paint the Crucible options as "submitting" to the enemy, which I don't think quite captures the situation. If you believe that the Catalyst is actively choosing to make the Crucible kill all synthetics, then that would be one thing. I don't believe that, though. I believe him when he says that the Crucible is physically unable to differentiate between synthetics when it sounds out the Destroy option. I hate that this is the case, but that has nothing to do with Destroy vs. Refuse.

This thread is about why Refuse is better than the Crucible given what is in the game. And what is in the game is that Refuse = automatic annihilation. Therefore, you are choosing Refuse knowing full well that you are complicit in the deaths of many, many more people than would have been killed using the Crucible. To me, that means you are placing your morals above the lives of every evolved organic race in the galaxy. I don't find that preserving my personal morality is worth that cost.

Ideally, the options would be changed to allow you to preserve your morals, destroy the Reapers, and not kill the geth/EDI. But in this thread we are not talking about hypotheticals but rather what is now in the game.

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

If you seriously believe all you said, I feel a marginal sense of pity for you.

Why because I was playing a game or 3 games that featured a hero that did the impossible and didn't buy that things were inevitable and then was turned into an idiot at the end?  You pity me for actually thinking that this game would be in the same "universe" as ME1 and 2 and wouldn't veer off into the silly and some sadistic fantasy land.  Yes, I'm sure when you were playing ME1 and 2 and then 3, you hoped at the end the game would end with a conversation with a crazy AI who would ask you to help him fulfill his purpose, and that you would do that.  Sure you did.

How many people in ME2 said there was no chance of returning, or that there was no way they could achieve their goal? The number hovers around zero. Everything knew the odds were bad and were prepared for the worst. The odds were never impossible.

Do the words Suicide Mission mean nothing to you.  Miranda did and
Shepard said she planned on coming back-Joker said he was glad Shepard
was in charge.  Play the games again.  Every meaningful challenge was
impossible.  How many times in ME1 did Hackett tell Shepard he never
thought Shepard would pull off some mission-too many for me to remember
right now.

Shepard even coming back from the dead was impossible. 

more of that catalyst creator helping Shepard lore going around and around and around and around... kind of a logic loop.

[Taboo]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shepard does not know he is going to live in Destroy. He walks right into the explosion.

If anything, I'd say shoot the pipe and hope for the best. No one else has to suffer at this point. It's all over.

One last, final, disgusting act, ends it for ALL life.

And that is why Destroy will ALWAYS be better than Refuse.

I have to disagree there Taboo, it's like refusal with a touch of defiance, but  I couldn't do that to EDI and Legion,who really worked hard to understand its/his creators, EDI who just wants to be human, for some weird reason...boy is she in for a rush..lol

I don't believe it's ethical for me to choose Control as my Shepard is alrady unstable mentally at this point. I won't risk putting that into an AI construct. Synthesis is too much.

I weigh the costs and decide that to ensure that ALL life is free, some must perish.

It's unethical and monstrous, but my Shepard would take responsibility for it. That much I know.

[incinerator950]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

If you seriously believe all you said, I feel a marginal sense of pity for you.

Why because I was playing a game or 3 games that featured a hero that did the impossible and didn't buy that things were inevitable and then was turned into an idiot at the end?  You pity me for actually thinking that this game would be in the same "universe" as ME1 and 2 and wouldn't veer off into the silly and some sadistic fantasy land.  Yes, I'm sure when you were playing ME1 and 2 and then 3, you hoped at the end the game would end with a conversation with a crazy AI who would ask you to help him fulfill his purpose, and that you would do that.  Sure you did.

How many people in ME2 said there was no chance of returning, or that there was no way they could achieve their goal? The number hovers around zero. Everything knew the odds were bad and were prepared for the worst. The odds were never impossible.

They're called Suicide Missions for a reason.  People take them, some goals are so life threatening, but if it progresses the war, slows the enemy down, or buys vital time for your forces, you have to take it.

No one said it was impossible, they said your chances of surviving are likely zero or far out.  Most of it was saying be prepared for casualties, or expect the worst.  

When I played ME1, I didn't care who I was talking to, I wanted to end the threat.  I even killed the council because it was a rational choice to allow them to die for the 5th to have extra forces to take on Sovereign.  When in ME2, I heard I was going to go on a Suicide Mission with little to no survival odds, I chose to do it because it had to be done.  I didn't care what was on the other side, the Collectors needed to be stopped.  Didn't know that TIM was really after the technology, and the Collectors were growing a Reaper.  Also, the plot didn't give me any options for alternatives, if I could talk Sovereign down to helping us, or talk the Illusive Man to send a Batallion of Mercenaries, Commandos, or troopers with me, I would have. 

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

If you seriously believe all you said, I feel a marginal sense of pity for you.

Why because I was playing a game or 3 games that featured a hero that did the impossible and didn't buy that things were inevitable and then was turned into an idiot at the end?  You pity me for actually thinking that this game would be in the same "universe" as ME1 and 2 and wouldn't veer off into the silly and some sadistic fantasy land.  Yes, I'm sure when you were playing ME1 and 2 and then 3, you hoped at the end the game would end with a conversation with a crazy AI who would ask you to help him fulfill his purpose, and that you would do that.  Sure you did.

How many people in ME2 said there was no chance of returning, or that there was no way they could achieve their goal? The number hovers around zero. Everything knew the odds were bad and were prepared for the worst. The odds were never impossible.

Do the words Suicide Mission mean nothing to you.  Miranda did and
Shepard said she planned on coming back-Joker said he was glad Shepard
was in charge.  Play the games again.  Every meaningful challenge was
impossible.  How many times in ME1 did Hackett tell Shepard he never
thought Shepard would pull off some mission-too many for me to remember
right now.

Shepard even coming back from the dead was impossible. 

Maybe you should play the game again. Miranda says, "We all knew this was likely a one-way trip."

That is much different than saying "We never had a chance." And you are proving my point with Joker. Other people disagree that they will all die, like Garrus. In ME3, there is no opposing voice. Everyone knows you need to use the Crucible to win.

[3DandBeyond]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yeah, uh war and idealism don't mix.

Someone is going to die and people are going to suffer.

Nothing is more of a moral failing than Refuse.

I would sooner kill one race to save them all than to kill everyone to satisfy MY beliefs.

Refuse is a colossal full retard position.

Don't always agree with you but you are right about this.

Many have attempted to justify wrongs that occur in the light of war.  Look at Nuremberg trials to see how they tried to justify that. 

It's also why the geneva conventions exist, because there are certain standards you don't abandon.

But this is a freaking game.  And it's an ME game.  This was not a game that ever took itself too seriously.  A lot of things in it were done tongue in cheek and it was supposed to be fun.  The very fact that we are discussing acceptable deaths in war and deciding the fates of every other person, no matter what they would want makes this a game that is not fun and does not fit in with the other games.  The fact that it also heads into fantasy land means the ending is a brand new game all on its own.

[3DandBeyond]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Maybe you should play the game again. Miranda says, "We all knew this was likely a one-way trip."

That is much different than saying "We never had a chance." And you are proving my point with Joker. Other people disagree that they will all die, like Garrus. In ME3, there is no opposing voice. Everyone knows you need to use the Crucible to win.

It's called a suicide mission.  It's not called a pretty tough mission.

[Wayning_Star]

CronoDragoon wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

A coward is someone who chooses to make someone or everyone pay a price merely for survival.  It's not deciding that even dying is preferable to living under the enemy's terms. 

And I'm so glad that people are really acting like mature individuals here.  It's bad writing that made the crucible as it is necessary.  That's not my fault. 

Many have faced certain death head on quite willingly if the price for survival is too high.  It's my opinion it is.  And I'm not calling you names because you think otherwise.  But when one can't back up their assertions with real respectible dialogue and discussion, they use insults.  I see it a lot here. 

I really was not trying to call you names. I know from your other posts that you fall into the "Kant" category and not necessarily the coward category. Perhaps delusional was too strong, but if you substitute it for another word I think the point still stands.

As for your definition of coward, I think very few people would agree that it is a suitable definition. You also paint the Crucible options as "submitting" to the enemy, which I don't think quite captures the situation. If you believe that the Catalyst is actively choosing to make the Crucible kill all synthetics, then that would be one thing. I don't believe that, though. I believe him when he says that the Crucible is physically unable to differentiate between synthetics when it sounds out the Destroy option. I hate that this is the case, but that has nothing to do with Destroy vs. Refuse.

This thread is about why Refuse is better than the Crucible given what is in the game. And what is in the game is that Refuse = automatic annihilation. Therefore, you are choosing Refuse knowing full well that you are complicit in the deaths of many, many more people than would have been killed using the Crucible. To me, that means you are placing your morals above the lives of every evolved organic race in the galaxy. I don't find that preserving my personal morality is worth that cost.

Ideally, the options would be changed to allow you to preserve your morals, destroy the Reapers, and not kill the geth/EDI. But in this thread we are not talking about hypotheticals but rather what is now in the game.

I'm of the impression that the crucible was never fully assembled and programmed properly, cause the races working on it were not capable of bringing it up to full capability. Whether that is possible is only found by playing the game in a way that would totally contribute to that cause. I don't even know if its possible. I do remember someone mentioning that it wasn't fully speced out though, but I cannot remember who said that? Maybe Javik, maybe the catalyst..???

[The Night Mammoth]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Shepard does not know he is going to live in Destroy. He walks right into the explosion.

If anything, I'd say shoot the pipe and hope for the best. No one else has to suffer at this point. It's all over.

One last, final, disgusting act, ends it for ALL life.

And that is why Destroy will ALWAYS be better than Refuse.

In hindsight, sure. 

But the OP's point is specifically about not using the benefit of it to decide which choice is best. 

Standing in Shepard's shoes at that point, in that situation, I can't imagine doing anything else but telling the Catalyst where to put its three options. 

I'm not Shepard, and I can reason in hindsight, as an omniscient member of the audience, so destroy it will always be.

[Wayning_Star]

3DandBeyond wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Maybe you should play the game again. Miranda says, "We all knew this was likely a one-way trip."

That is much different than saying "We never had a chance." And you are proving my point with Joker. Other people disagree that they will all die, like Garrus. In ME3, there is no opposing voice. Everyone knows you need to use the Crucible to win.

It's called a suicide mission.  It's not called a pretty tough mission.

lol, battle folk loves that challenge!!

[CronoDragoon]

3DandBeyond wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Yeah, uh war and idealism don't mix.

Someone is going to die and people are going to suffer.

Nothing is more of a moral failing than Refuse.

I would sooner kill one race to save them all than to kill everyone to satisfy MY beliefs.

Refuse is a colossal full retard position.

Don't always agree with you but you are right about this.

Many have attempted to justify wrongs that occur in the light of war.  Look at Nuremberg trials to see how they tried to justify that. 

It's also why the geneva conventions exist, because there are certain standards you don't abandon.

But this is a freaking game.  And it's an ME game.  This was not a game that ever took itself too seriously.  A lot of things in it were done tongue in cheek and it was supposed to be fun.  The very fact that we are discussing acceptable deaths in war and deciding the fates of every other person, no matter what they would want makes this a game that is not fun and does not fit in with the other games.  The fact that it also heads into fantasy land means the ending is a brand new game all on its own.

Again, you are arguing why the endings should be different than they are, which I agree with. But in this thread I am talking about refuse vs. destroy as they are. Of course, if you pick Refuse as a meta-FU to BioWare then I can respect that.