DoomsdayDevice wrote...
Now, for the 'interesting' conversation with EDI that I was talking about the other day.
This happens right after the Citadel Coup for me. EDI is worried about her mortality because the Tuchanka Reaper (a technologically superior force) was destroyed by a worm.
This causes her to ask Shepard what the purpose of synthetic life is. This can play out in four different ways.
First branching point:
You can tell her that the purpose of a synthetic is the job it was designed for (renegade), or you can tell her that it's whatever a synthetic wants (paragon).
First option: You tell her it's the job it was designed for, and that it's a matter of looking what the creator made it for.
She then says Cerberus made her, but that she no longer serves them. You then tell her that one of Cerberus goals was to give humanity a fighting chance, and that maybe she could get behind that.
She then says that it's not very different from what she's doing now and asks if you think she would find it worthwhile. (Kind of a strange thing to ask, if you think about it!)
Joker then comments: "Well, you could do it for me! I'd make a pretty crappy husk."
Then EDI aks: "How would this differ from our present course?" (Second branching point):
You can either tell her she would know the difference, or that it would not be servitude (.
If you go with the first option, you say it would change what she would tell herself.
She then says she will not change her programming yet, but that she will devote processing power to thinking of a worthy goal.
If you take the other option (not servitude), you tell her that she decides if it's worth it.
She reflects for a moment, and then says that on the Normandy she can share her perspectives with the crew. If she did that with the Reapers, she would be destroyed. So she would rather risk non-functionality by staying on the Normandy.
IMO, this is strange for several reasons. For one, we weren't talking about the Reapers' goals, but Cerberus'. Secondly, this seems to imply she's only siding with us because it means it improves her chances for survival for now.
Now, back to the first branching point of the conversation.
You tell her the purpose of synthetic life is not very different from organic life. A free-willed synthetic chooses what it wants.
EDI then says that the purpose of organic life is to preserve itself long enough to replicate copies of its genes in succeeding generations. And that the only examples of succesful syntheic lifeforms that she knows about are the Geth and the Reapers.
You can respond to this in one of two ways (second branching point):
You can tell her there´s more to organics: Reproduction isn't all there is, people find meaning in the work they do, good deeds, love.
She then searches historic records on human behaviour to see if your claim is true. Upon finding that it is, she says she will alter her programming to devote more processing power to duty, altruism and love.
Joker then asks (and rightfully so!): "Wait - you can do that? You can just 'turn yourself good'?" This is a very interesting question, because it also means she (or the Reapers) could turn herself evil with the 'flick of a switch' as well.
This raises all kinds of interesting questions about morality and ethics for synthetics, and it seems relevant to the question if they have a soul.
Are synthetics really people? Or are they just machines who can turn themselves good or evil with the flick of a switch?
That aside, let's look at the most interesting part of the conversation.
Instead of telling her there's more to organics, you can tell her to not think like a Reaper. You say: "There's nothing to emulate about the Reapers." Joker wholeheartedly seconds this.
EDI then says that the Reapers are an extremely successful model, with average lifespans of millions of years.
Shepard then says that she should ask herself if she wants to spend her life destroying and harvesting organics.
EDI then says: "That is an unusual perspective, Shepard. I will devote processing power to considering it. Thank you."
Note that in two results, she contemplates, and then reaches some kind of conclusion. For the two more questionable things you can tell her, she only goes to consider and doesn't report back.
Not drawing any conclusions based on this, because I'm still in the middle of my playthrough, and I'm aware of some of the more positive things she says at a later stage... but it's safe to say that some of the things she says really give me pause.
Food for thought.
I'll have to try that next time I get to that point. Sounds intriqueing.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
