925 réponses à ce sujet

[Pitznik]

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?

because you cause Genocide of the Geth and EDI

There are more organics than Geth, even if we add EDI. So, again, how is it more harm than good?

also the fact you prove the Starbrat right about Synthetics being the true evil

No, it doesn't. Destroying of the synthetics without destroying the means to produce them, and destroying the ultimate control tool of synthetics problem is in fact denying the Catalyst. Following Catalyst logic the galaxy is more susceptible to this perceived synthetic threat than before. Destroy sends the message of: "we don't believe your problem, so we see no point in keeping around the tools that can get rid of that problem".

Modifié par Pitznik, 16 août 2012 - 05:39 .

[LiarasShield]

You can't be satisfied that you picked a ending that suits you but you have to say the refuser are evil or monsters for standing for what they believe in and not willnig to alter everybody or become someone else for a only maybe chance that it will save them

Honestly really must we really keep going

[BaladasDemnevanni]

LiarasShield wrote...

You believe and feel conventional victory is impossiable you think refusers are evil because they're willing to not alter everyone else and die free with their believes then become someone elses in order to maybe save the galaxy it is still a big maybe

Hey, if you want to role-play a Shepard who thinks conventional victory is possible, go for it. But that's not the Shepard Bioware handed you. No one else seems to think conventional victory is happening. Not Hackett, who's actually leading the fleet. Not Anderson. No one.  

But for someone who has such a distorted view of morality, you should have been able to say to Hackett "Look, stop building the Crucible, don't throw everything we have on this one device which we don't understand". Instead, you led all your forces against the heart of the Reaper fleet, discovered a solution to the problem, and believe that you have a right to knock out anyone who tries to activate the Crucible, when it's your fault we tried to rescue Earth in the first place. Then, maybe, you'd have an argument for refuse.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 05:38 .

[robertthebard]

LiarasShield wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...



If any one person tried to use the crucible in order to alter everything or everyone I would not kill them but I would knock them out or incapcitate them so that they can't do it

What happened to everybody's right to choose?  Isn't that why you're refusing, so that everyone has the right to choose?  So here we have your superior officer, going to take an action that you have already stated that you would prefer somebody else take, and you would deny him that right to choose?  This isn't a question about an ending this is a hypothetical question, framed around a hypothetical situation, and yet, the logic that you repeatedly use to justify your choice is out the window because given the right to choose, Anderson chose something you didn't approve of?

hmm well it depends did the person hacket send get a vote from everybody and what choice they would want him or her to pick?

This also decides wether or not I knock him or her out

I already answered this question last page rob

I missed it, been rereading since.  However, Admiral Anderson has taken the onus of choice away from you, something that you requested, and you deny him the right to choose, on who's authority?  He outranks you, so it's not chain of command.  This isn't Hackett sending someone, Anderson fought his way to you the same way you fought in.  He has been your commanding officer in two games, 1 and 3, and one of the few people that didn't question what you had to do working with Cerberus.  If it's about freedom, and the right to choose, why would you deny him both?

[Pitznik]

Isichar wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

So it all is down to your denial about chance of conventional victory? Again? Whole topic? 21 pages?

You could just say so - I disagree with 0% of conentional victory, I see it higher, and I rather stick with my 2% than with great unknown. That makes sense.

My denial of conventional victory?

And here I just said I know we are screwed conventionally.

What part of I dont believe in conventional victory is so hard for you to grasp. I said I dont believe the crucible is any more likely to work then conventional victory, which as you stated is about 0% chance.

There is no unknown in conventional victory. There is unknown in Crucible. So it is still Crucible > conventional victory. Worst case scenario - it just does what Reapers will do anyway.

[LiarasShield]

robertthebard wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...



If any one person tried to use the crucible in order to alter everything or everyone I would not kill them but I would knock them out or incapcitate them so that they can't do it

What happened to everybody's right to choose?  Isn't that why you're refusing, so that everyone has the right to choose?  So here we have your superior officer, going to take an action that you have already stated that you would prefer somebody else take, and you would deny him that right to choose?  This isn't a question about an ending this is a hypothetical question, framed around a hypothetical situation, and yet, the logic that you repeatedly use to justify your choice is out the window because given the right to choose, Anderson chose something you didn't approve of?

hmm well it depends did the person hacket send get a vote from everybody and what choice they would want him or her to pick?

This also decides wether or not I knock him or her out

I already answered this question last page rob

I missed it, been rereading since.  However, Admiral Anderson has taken the onus of choice away from you, something that you requested, and you deny him the right to choose, on who's authority?  He outranks you, so it's not chain of command.  This isn't Hackett sending someone, Anderson fought his way to you the same way you fought in.  He has been your commanding officer in two games, 1 and 3, and one of the few people that didn't question what you had to do working with Cerberus.  If it's about freedom, and the right to choose, why would you deny him both?

Then fine I guess I would let him though but I would at least try to talk to him first to see if that really is the only option he wants to do

[AresKeith]

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?

because you cause Genocide of the Geth and EDI

There are more organics than Geth, even if we add EDI. So, again, how is it more harm than good?

also the fact you prove the Starbrat right about Synthetics being the true evil

No, it doesn't. Destroying of the synthetics without destroying the means to produce them, and destroying the ultimate control tool of synthetics problem is in fact denying the Catalyst. Following Catalyst logic the galaxy is more susceptible to this perceived synthetic threat than before. Destroy sends the message of: "we don't believe your problem, so we see no point in keeping around the tools that can get rid of that problem".

 and the fact that each choice is built on the Citadel, which was built by the Reapers says otherwise

[LiarasShield]

I won't change everyone I can't and I won't

I'm going end this war my way

I fight for freedom mine and everyones


I won't alter people I will die free then alter everyone in the galaxy or become someone elses only for a maybe chance at victory with no one being the same who they once were

[memorysquid]

LiarasShield wrote...

It is ultimatle your belief against someone elses doesn't make any of the endings better

Ultimately, your defense of moral relativism is pointless, because if you're right, then who cares what you have to say?

[robertthebard]

LiarasShield wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...



If any one person tried to use the crucible in order to alter everything or everyone I would not kill them but I would knock them out or incapcitate them so that they can't do it

What happened to everybody's right to choose?  Isn't that why you're refusing, so that everyone has the right to choose?  So here we have your superior officer, going to take an action that you have already stated that you would prefer somebody else take, and you would deny him that right to choose?  This isn't a question about an ending this is a hypothetical question, framed around a hypothetical situation, and yet, the logic that you repeatedly use to justify your choice is out the window because given the right to choose, Anderson chose something you didn't approve of?

hmm well it depends did the person hacket send get a vote from everybody and what choice they would want him or her to pick?

This also decides wether or not I knock him or her out

I already answered this question last page rob

I missed it, been rereading since.  However, Admiral Anderson has taken the onus of choice away from you, something that you requested, and you deny him the right to choose, on who's authority?  He outranks you, so it's not chain of command.  This isn't Hackett sending someone, Anderson fought his way to you the same way you fought in.  He has been your commanding officer in two games, 1 and 3, and one of the few people that didn't question what you had to do working with Cerberus.  If it's about freedom, and the right to choose, why would you deny him both?

Then fine I guess I would let him though but I would at least try to talk to him first to see if that really is the only option he wants to do

I'd shoot him if he was choosing something I didn't want chosen, with no regrets.  Well, maybe with some regret.  But I wouldn't claim the moral high ground for doing it.  I did answer this a few pages back or so, though.  That's part and parcel to making the hard choices.  The hypothetical this time was Synthesis though, and while I don't begrudge anyone the right to choose, all I can say is bleh.

[Pitznik]

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?

because you cause Genocide of the Geth and EDI

There are more organics than Geth, even if we add EDI. So, again, how is it more harm than good?

also the fact you prove the Starbrat right about Synthetics being the true evil

No, it doesn't. Destroying of the synthetics without destroying the means to produce them, and destroying the ultimate control tool of synthetics problem is in fact denying the Catalyst. Following Catalyst logic the galaxy is more susceptible to this perceived synthetic threat than before. Destroy sends the message of: "we don't believe your problem, so we see no point in keeping around the tools that can get rid of that problem".

 and the fact that each choice is built on the Citadel, which was built by the Reapers says otherwise

Now you have changed your arguement. First it was "because it follows Reaper's logic". Now it is "because it comes from the Reapers". Destroy when looking at what it DOES, not where it comes from, is against Catalyst's logic. Please counter that arguement.

Also, it comes from a Citadel + Crucible. Citadel was built by Reapers or Reapers creators. Crucible was build by Reapers, Reapers' creator, or Reapers' enemies - so you are wrong in that too.

[memorysquid]

LiarasShield wrote...

I won't change everyone I can't and I won't

I'm going end this war my way

I fight for freedom mine and everyones


I won't alter people I will die free then alter everyone in the galaxy or become someone elses only for a maybe chance at victory with no one being the same who they once were

No, in this game you CAN; you just choose not to.  You're being inauthentic at least WRT ME3.  You can end the war your way; it is just a horrible, ridiculous way to end it. [although it has a rousing speech!]

[LiarasShield]

The Catalyst is required just for the crucible to work and he is the thing that powers the crucible he is also the thing that controls the reapers you can't counter this arguement because the prothean artifact on thessia told you that the catalyst is required to use the crucible

[LiarasShield]

memorysquid wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

I won't change everyone I can't and I won't

I'm going end this war my way

I fight for freedom mine and everyones


I won't alter people I will die free then alter everyone in the galaxy or become someone elses only for a maybe chance at victory with no one being the same who they once were

No, in this game you CAN; you just choose not to.  You're being inauthentic at least WRT ME3.  You can end the war your way; it is just a horrible, ridiculous way to end it. [although it has a rousing speech!]

To each their own you don't agree but I do

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...

I won't change everyone I can't and I won't

I'm going end this war my way

I fight for freedom mine and everyones


I won't alter people I will die free then alter everyone in the galaxy or become someone elses only for a maybe chance at victory with no one being the same who they once were

Reapers will end this war, their way.

What is this freedom worth, if they can't choose to not be killed by the Reapers?

You love to repeat that, don't you? Empty pathos has something to it, I have to admit.

[LiarasShield]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

I won't change everyone I can't and I won't

I'm going end this war my way

I fight for freedom mine and everyones


I won't alter people I will die free then alter everyone in the galaxy or become someone elses only for a maybe chance at victory with no one being the same who they once were

Reapers will end this war, their way.

What is this freedom worth, if they can't choose to not be killed by the Reapers?

You love to repeat that, don't you? Empty pathos has something to it, I have to admit.

It is the only ending where shepards get to remain true to herself how she was the rest of the me series so take it how you will ^^

Also the ending that confirms what I always thought was the case that the catalyst was always a reaper or harbinger


Also you think differently about the endings

SO BE IT
lol ^__-

Modifié par LiarasShield, 16 août 2012 - 05:58 .

[AresKeith]

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?

because you cause Genocide of the Geth and EDI

There are more organics than Geth, even if we add EDI. So, again, how is it more harm than good?

also the fact you prove the Starbrat right about Synthetics being the true evil

No, it doesn't. Destroying of the synthetics without destroying the means to produce them, and destroying the ultimate control tool of synthetics problem is in fact denying the Catalyst. Following Catalyst logic the galaxy is more susceptible to this perceived synthetic threat than before. Destroy sends the message of: "we don't believe your problem, so we see no point in keeping around the tools that can get rid of that problem".

 and the fact that each choice is built on the Citadel, which was built by the Reapers says otherwise

Now you have changed your arguement. First it was "because it follows Reaper's logic". Now it is "because it comes from the Reapers". Destroy when looking at what it DOES, not where it comes from, is against Catalyst's logic. Please counter that arguement.

Also, it comes from a Citadel + Crucible. Citadel was built by Reapers or Reapers creators. Crucible was build by Reapers, Reapers' creator, or Reapers' enemies - so you are wrong in that too.

no, I was trying to say that I don't think Destroy was really a "choice"

And it was already confirmed that the Citadel was built by the Reapers, the Crucible is a power source which means it only gives power to make them fuction, the choices are still part of the Citadel

[Pitznik]

LiarasShield wrote...

It is the only ending where shepards get to remain true to herself how she was the rest of the me series so take it how you will ^^

Also the ending that confirms what I always thought was the case that the catalyst was always a reaper or harbinger

But SHepard never was avoiding difficult decisions. On Virmire he didn't stop and said "Screw you guys, I'm going home", he just made a choice.

Also, it is no secret Catalyst is the Reapers, he confirms it himself.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

3DandBeyond wrote...

But your example is not based on morality at all.  If you have a bomb strapped to you that no one can get off of you, what do you expect someone to do about it?  There's no morality there.  Are people supposed to hug you and suicide in sympathy?  The geth don't have a bomb strapped to them.  They have a gun pointed to their head and you are given the choice to pull the trigger or not.  If you pull it, you committed the act.  If your foe pulls another trigger they committed the act.  You are putting it down to numbers and I don't think it purely is about numbers.  But it's not only that Shepard can commit an immoral act, but it sets up a new rule in the galaxy of just what is acceptable.  It does the genophage one better.  The genophage was a form of genocide, but it prevented births.  Why wouldn't people then think it's now ok to just out and out kill whole races that threaten the lives of others?  If you can devalue one group of people even for the sake of others, you devalue life in general.  It's worse when it's based on uncertainty.

I can understand the point that it's not just about numbers. This isn't uncommon in ethics. But neither is the conclusion of acting vs. not acting. Responsibility for an action is often parsed out according to the details of any given situation. It's not just a question of just "who performed the act".

To bring up an earlier point: a doctor who refuses to save a dying man isn't going to be considered completely innocent, merely because he did not actively kill him. Likewise, a bully who torments a student until he mentally snaps played a part in his death. This is why the Geth scenario is more similar to a bomb being strapped to a dying man. Far as the narrative is telling us, we can't win this war via normal means.

Believing conventional victory is possible wouldn't be a problem if Shepard is able to express this at multiple relevant points throughout the story. But Hackett, Anderson, everyone thinks that we can't do this, which Shepard never denies. Shepard actively supports an "all eggs in one basket" mentality, by helping build the Crucible. Once Shepard accepts that conventional victory is impossible, the question of the Geth is reduced to a man with a bomb attached to him. And given that Shepard knows the consequences of both situations, he has now played a key role in dooming the galaxy.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 août 2012 - 06:02 .

[memorysquid]

LiarasShield wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

I won't change everyone I can't and I won't

I'm going end this war my way

I fight for freedom mine and everyones


I won't alter people I will die free then alter everyone in the galaxy or become someone elses only for a maybe chance at victory with no one being the same who they once were

No, in this game you CAN; you just choose not to.  You're being inauthentic at least WRT ME3.  You can end the war your way; it is just a horrible, ridiculous way to end it. [although it has a rousing speech!]

To each their own you don't agree but I do

To each their own what?  The moral principle you are espousing is nonsense.  It's better to let someone die than to alter them in a way that they might not wish?  They can always kill themselves if they don't like the alteration, so my option is more inclusive.  Your force them to die without choice.  Your vision is anti-autonomy.

[robertthebard]

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

What good causes the Crucible (in Destroy): makes everyone alive free of the Reapers. What harm it causes: damages the technology, kills all the synthetic life.

How is this more harm than good?

because you cause Genocide of the Geth and EDI

There are more organics than Geth, even if we add EDI. So, again, how is it more harm than good?

also the fact you prove the Starbrat right about Synthetics being the true evil

No, it doesn't. Destroying of the synthetics without destroying the means to produce them, and destroying the ultimate control tool of synthetics problem is in fact denying the Catalyst. Following Catalyst logic the galaxy is more susceptible to this perceived synthetic threat than before. Destroy sends the message of: "we don't believe your problem, so we see no point in keeping around the tools that can get rid of that problem".

 and the fact that each choice is built on the Citadel, which was built by the Reapers says otherwise

Now you have changed your arguement. First it was "because it follows Reaper's logic". Now it is "because it comes from the Reapers". Destroy when looking at what it DOES, not where it comes from, is against Catalyst's logic. Please counter that arguement.

Also, it comes from a Citadel + Crucible. Citadel was built by Reapers or Reapers creators. Crucible was build by Reapers, Reapers' creator, or Reapers' enemies - so you are wrong in that too.

no, I was trying to say that I don't think Destroy was really a "choice"

And it was already confirmed that the Citadel was built by the Reapers, the Crucible is a power source which means it only gives power to make them fuction, the choices are still part of the Citadel

Actually, the crucible is more than a power source:   7:25.

[Pitznik]

AresKeith wrote...


no, I was trying to say that I don't think Destroy was really a "choice"

And it was already confirmed that the Citadel was built by the Reapers, the Crucible is a power source which means it only gives power to make them fuction, the choices are still part of the Citadel

Destroy is a choice, and its result is against Reapers' goal. My point still stands - why the destroy brings more harm than good?

We don't know for certain who build the CItadel. In fact Citadel is the Catalyst, and Catalyst was created by Reapers' creators. Since Citadel = Catalyst, and Catalyst created Reapers, Reapers couldn't create the Citadel, no?

[LiarasShield]

Pitznik wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

It is the only ending where shepards get to remain true to herself how she was the rest of the me series so take it how you will ^^

Also the ending that confirms what I always thought was the case that the catalyst was always a reaper or harbinger

But SHepard never was avoiding difficult decisions. On Virmire he didn't stop and said "Screw you guys, I'm going home", he just made a choice.

Also, it is no secret Catalyst is the Reapers, he confirms it himself.

He confirms he controls the reapers and that he may be the reaper intelligence he never flat outsaid he was a reaper it would make those choices even more bizzare if it was the case but in refuse it definitly shows that the catalyst all along was a reaper or harbinger ^^

[LiarasShield]

memorysquid wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

I won't change everyone I can't and I won't

I'm going end this war my way

I fight for freedom mine and everyones


I won't alter people I will die free then alter everyone in the galaxy or become someone elses only for a maybe chance at victory with no one being the same who they once were

No, in this game you CAN; you just choose not to.  You're being inauthentic at least WRT ME3.  You can end the war your way; it is just a horrible, ridiculous way to end it. [although it has a rousing speech!]

To each their own you don't agree but I do

To each their own what?  The moral principle you are espousing is nonsense.  It's better to let someone die than to alter them in a way that they might not wish?  They can always kill themselves if they don't like the alteration, so my option is more inclusive.  Your force them to die without choice.  Your vision is anti-autonomy.

Telling someone to kill themselves because you took their choice away or because you altered them you're really no better then the reapers at least about being evil they don't hind their intent

[memorysquid]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

To bring up an earlier point: a doctor who refuses to save a dying man isn't going to be considered completely innocent,

Unless he is that man's doctor, he is completely innocent.  There's a difference between malfeasance [doing something that negatively impacts someone] and nonfeasance [refusing to act].  That distinction doesn't really apply to Shepard because using the Crucible really is his job.