224 réponses à ce sujet

[Ticonderoga117]

Shadow Quickpaw wrote...
I believe what the Catalyst meant by "cannot be forced" is a purely physical sense. Synthesis is not something that was physically possible in previous cycles, while it can apparantly be achieved in the present cycle.

Which is nonsense because we only built the power source, which the Reapers could've easily built themselves. It seems to have more of a psych angle on it, which makes just about as much sense as the above.

[Mims]

I'm pretty sure you'd be forcing synthesis on Javik. So yes, no matter how you look at it, some people would be forced. Its up to you whether it is worth it or not via ends justify the means.

[inversevideo]

zambot wrote...

inversevideo wrote...
Yet here she is being asked to make a life altering decision, for trillions of beings

Yes, this is the entire point of the ending.  You (Shepard) get to decide the fate of trillions of beings.  This is not unique to synthesis.   You don't hold a vote to decide whether to wipe out the Geth, elect Shepard as supreme dictator, change everyone's dna, or take your chances with the reapers.  There isn't time for a democratic process.  Shepard has to make a choice, drawing from everything he/she learned.  You make that choice, and the galaxy lives with whatever you choose.

You are the hero the story; that is your job.

Shepard is a soldier. Destroy seems the pretty clear option, as it is in line with her mission objectives.
There is already massive death toll, if you count the milions of Asari, humans and Turians being converted into Reaper troops.  The Geth and EDI are acceptable collateral damage.  I have no reason to doubt that EDI as well as the GETH have backed themselves up.  If they have not, then their loss is the price for containing the Reapers.

Let's up the ante, in a way Bioware probably should have, but did not, possibly for 'game mechanics reasons' Would Spectre Shepard choose destroy if it meant killing every human, but saving everyone else?  Or would she make another choice?  This is where you are going correct?

I would choose control in that scenario, over synthesis in that case.

Is this hypocritical? Not to my mind. Why not? Because Starkid has told me outright that if I choose destroy, all AI will die, but we or our children will recreate AI at some point and the cycle will repeat.

This tells me that GETH, who Legion has repeatedly told us, are programs, software. EDI backs herself up regularly. Either those backups can be restored or they cannot. Either way, AI can be rebuilt, the AI 'race', if you like, will not be lost forever.  Am I more comfortable sacrificing inorganics? Am I specist? Do I favor organics over inorgnics? Yes, yes & yes.  We brought them into this word, we can make more.  What can I say? It is what it is.
I will try to preserve AI, but AI can be recreated, and organic species, not so much.

If a consequence of choosing destroy, was that humans were wiped out, during process, humanity could not be replaced. So my choice, would them be to sacrifice myself, by choosing control and hope for the best.

Synthesis, I just cannot do it. I was not deployed to rewrite the genetic code of the galaxy. I have no way of knowing what that would do, and I feel that greatly exceeds my mission parameters, given that there are other choices available. 

And please be aware that I do not take personal issue with the synthesis advocates. 
I appreciate your perspective, but I cannot go that route.  

[Ticonderoga117]

zambot wrote...
You are the hero the story; that is your job.

I think we have different definitions of "hero". Mine is someone who can save the day by forging thier own salvation through sheer badassery and will.

Shepard in ME3 gets to bow down to the Reaper King and commit suicide or die by inaction.

[zambot]

inversevideo wrote...


If a consequence of choosing destroy, was that humans were wiped out, during process, humanity could not be replaced. So my choice, would them be to sacrifice myself, by choosing control and hope for the best.

Sure they could.  There's nothing stopping the Salarians from recreating humans from dna.  You lose all the individuals, but the race can be created.  Just like the Geth...

If your argument for picking Destroy hinges upon the belief that the Geth are just machines and can be rebuilt, it is obvious to me why you picked Destroy.  There's very little downside to it.  I do not share that belief, and I believe much of the point of the story is to get people to think about what consititutes life in a different way. 

[sharkboy421]

Greylycantrope wrote...

It just come off as a contradiction to me.
"Synthesis can't be force, now force a solution on the whole galaxy Shepard, before I decide to go back to that solution I just said wouldn't work anymore and Reaper you all, come on chop chop I'm on the clock here"

This was pretty much my exact thoughts as well.  The Catalyst said synthesis cannot be forced, he tried it before and it failed.  Alright I'll buy it, sounds reasonable enough.  Then he tells me this time is different.  Ok maybe he is right.  After this cycle has come farther than any other.  But then the Catalyst says I can choose synthesis for everyone.  That sounds like forcing the issue to me. 

[inversevideo]

zambot wrote...

inversevideo wrote...


If a consequence of choosing destroy, was that humans were wiped out, during process, humanity could not be replaced. So my choice, would them be to sacrifice myself, by choosing control and hope for the best.

Sure they could.  There's nothing stopping the Salarians from recreating humans from dna.  You lose all the individuals, but the race can be created.  Just like the Geth...

If your argument for picking Destroy hinges upon the belief that the Geth are just machines and can be rebuilt, it is obvious to me why you picked Destroy.  There's very little downside to it.  I do not share that belief, and I believe much of the point of the story is to get people to think about what consititutes life in a different way. 

Please, let's keep the discussion real.  
The Salarians are not going to recreate humanity. No one is undertaking that effort.  
Once humans are gone they are gone. Salarians might call dibs on our stuff though.

I understand that you do not choose to sacrifice any lives. So why not choose 'control'?

Help me to understand why you would feel it is okay to change the very core of every life?
How are you so certain that rewriting everyone's DNA is for the best?  What are you basing that decision on?
You have all of 5 minutes to evaluate that choice, and it impacts the entire galaxy.
You are making this decision with zero input from anyone else and no certain knowledge of the repercussions of such an action. There will be repercussions.

Without meta-gaming, please explain how, given a 5 minute explanation of what synthesis is, directly from the orifice of the root of all evil, why you would choose to merge organic life with machine life?

[Isichar]

Oh well if the catalyst said so it must be true! Because his logic is fail-proof.

[SparkyRich]

We already know that the Catalyst is not a moral being. My question still stands; is it morally acceptable to make this decision for virtually every living (and synthetic) thing in the galaxy?

If the Catalyst were to stop the Reapers and then ask everyone if they would choose synthesis to end the fighting at least we'd have a baseline vote to work with.

[zambot]

inversevideo wrote...

zambot wrote...

inversevideo wrote...


If a consequence of choosing destroy, was that humans were wiped out, during process, humanity could not be replaced. So my choice, would them be to sacrifice myself, by choosing control and hope for the best.

Sure they could.  There's nothing stopping the Salarians from recreating humans from dna.  You lose all the individuals, but the race can be created.  Just like the Geth...

If your argument for picking Destroy hinges upon the belief that the Geth are just machines and can be rebuilt, it is obvious to me why you picked Destroy.  There's very little downside to it.  I do not share that belief, and I believe much of the point of the story is to get people to think about what consititutes life in a different way. 

Please, let's keep the discussion real.  
The Salarians are not going to recreate humanity. No one is undertaking that effort.  
Once humans are gone they are gone. Salarians might call dibs on our stuff though.

I understand that you do not choose to sacrifice any lives. So why not choose 'control'?

Help me to understand why you would feel it is okay to change the very core of every life?
How are you so certain that rewriting everyone's DNA is for the best?  What are you basing that decision on?
You have all of 5 minutes to evaluate that choice, and it impacts the entire galaxy.
You are making this decision with zero input from anyone else and no certain knowledge of the repercussions of such an action. There will be repercussions.

Without meta-gaming, please explain how, given a 5 minute explanation of what synthesis is, directly from the orifice of the root of all evil, why you would choose to merge organic life with machine life?

So, if Salarians could recreate humans, but choose not to, then why would anyone recreate the Geth?

My options are

a. Kill the Geth and the reapers
b. Become the reaper god
c. Unleash space magic using my essence to create peace
d. Do nothing and let everyone die.

Once I got over the sheer absurdity that is "c" and decided to just go with what the writers were trying to imply, I decided to just roll with it.  I really didn't feel comfortable killing all the Geth while alternatives existed.  I also really didn't feel "b" would solve anything in the long run.  So I took the "leap of faith" into the magic beam.  I'm ok with that.

[zambot]

SparkyRich wrote...

We already know that the Catalyst is not a moral being. My question still stands; is it morally acceptable to make this decision for virtually every living (and synthetic) thing in the galaxy?

If the Catalyst were to stop the Reapers and then ask everyone if they would choose synthesis to end the fighting at least we'd have a baseline vote to work with.

That's not the way it works.  Shepard is in a position to decide how to end a war.  Doing nothing means everyone dies.  Shepard has the capability to end war FOREVER by working a little space magic.  One could make the argument that it is morally reprehensible NOT to choose that.

I won't of course, as I think there are perfectly valid reasons for choosing any of the 4 endings.  But I reject this ridiculous notion that synthesis is evil because you are forcing your choice upon the galaxy.  You force your choice on the galaxy no matter what you do.

[fr33stylez]

wizardryforever wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

OP I'm not sure I am following you correctly.

From my perspective, it does not matter if Starkid tells me the galaxy is ready for synthesis, or even that he is correct. I don't see how any individual can decide to impose a change on any other individual, without permission.

It would be like thinking that hot blonde in the coffee shop is ready for sex, and then, without any communication with her whatsoever, you go over and start having sex with her. It is a violation.

I think folks decide synthesis is okay, because the EC shows happy shiny beings, and there is that great speech by EDI. But how do you know that those who were changed are happy with the change? And are they happy with the change or because they were re-written, and in the re-writing of their DNA, so changed to be happy?

It is a very slippery slope, and there are no answers. Shepard is not a geneticist, she cannot know the price of synthesis, nor does she have the time to study the issue, presuming she could.

Yet here she is being asked to make a life altering decision, for trillions of beings, regarding their very genetic structure, all on the advice of a genocidal machine. And doing this without anyone's permission, I don't understand how that is not forcing a change on the galaxy, by negating the choice/free will of those you are changing.

To continue your example, attempting to sex it up with the blonde can either work, in which case you actually were right about her being ready. 

....WHAT?

I don't think you understand the objections of Synthesis and the context in which 'forced' is being used.

[inversevideo]

zambot wrote...

So, if Salarians could recreate humans, but choose not to, then why would anyone recreate the Geth?

My options are

a. Kill the Geth and the reapers
b. Become the reaper god
c. Unleash space magic using my essence to create peace
d. Do nothing and let everyone die.

Once I got over the sheer absurdity that is "c" and decided to just go with what the writers were trying to imply, I decided to just roll with it.  I really didn't feel comfortable killing all the Geth while alternatives existed.  I also really didn't feel "b" would solve anything in the long run.  So I took the "leap of faith" into the magic beam.  I'm ok with that.

Again with the Salarians, this is a specious line of reasoning, based on head-canon and is weak.

The Salarians have shown no propensity for ressurection of dead species. There is no reason to assume they will turn to techno-necormancy in the future either.  On the other hand, organic species have shown a repeated fascination with the creation of AI.  And in the ME universe, there are many species trying to create AI, and many, like the Protheans before, have also done so, going back to Leviathan. So the 'race' of AI will be fine.

I understand that Synthesis feels right to you. But do you have the right to impose your faith on the entire galaxy?
Trillions of beings have to live with the decision you are about to make on a leap of faith. You are going to change the lives of every living thing in ways that cannot be calculated. What of unintended consequences?

You do not chose to be the 'machine god', yet based on an 'a priori' belief that your faith is justified, you have no problem playing 'god' with the lives of trillions?  Should you be playing dice with the universe? 

[Bill Casey]

Synthesis is forced...
Which proves the Starchild is either lying to you or doesn't know what the hell he is talking about...


I don't know how you can sit there and say it isn't forced...
Are you ****ing kidding me?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 06 septembre 2012 - 04:46 .

[zambot]

inversevideo wrote...

zambot wrote...

So, if Salarians could recreate humans, but choose not to, then why would anyone recreate the Geth?

My options are

a. Kill the Geth and the reapers
b. Become the reaper god
c. Unleash space magic using my essence to create peace
d. Do nothing and let everyone die.

Once I got over the sheer absurdity that is "c" and decided to just go with what the writers were trying to imply, I decided to just roll with it.  I really didn't feel comfortable killing all the Geth while alternatives existed.  I also really didn't feel "b" would solve anything in the long run.  So I took the "leap of faith" into the magic beam.  I'm ok with that.

Again with the Salarians, this is a specious line of reasoning, based on head-canon and is weak.

The Salarians have shown no propensity for ressurection of dead species. There is no reason to assume they will turn to techno-necormancy in the future either.  On the other hand, organic species have shown a repeated fascination with the creation of AI.  And in the ME universe, there are many species trying to create AI, and many, like the Protheans before, have also done so, going back to Leviathan. So the 'race' of AI will be fine.

I understand that Synthesis feels right to you. But do you have the right to impose your faith on the entire galaxy?
Trillions of beings have to live with the decision you are about to make on a leap of faith. You are going to change the lives of every living thing in ways that cannot be calculated. What of unintended consequences?

You do not chose to be the 'machine god', yet based on an 'a priori' belief that your faith is justified, you have no problem playing 'god' with the lives of trillions?  Should you be playing dice with the universe? 

My point with the Salarians goes back to your first post where you claimed Geth can be rebuilt.  I'm pointing out that humans could be rebuilt too.  You can argue that Salarians WON'T recreate humans, but that's beside the point.  When you wipe out the Geth, you are wiping out trillions of individuals (assuming you accept Legion's story.  If you don't, by all means pick destroy.  There's no downside).  Justifying this by saying you can just rebuild them is no different from saying it's ok to wipe out all humans because you could restar the race later.

Shepard is going to play god no matter what he/she picks.  You can play god by tweaking dna, you can play god by condeming the Geth to die, or you can literally become God.  Saying that synthesis is more evil than the other choices because you are playing god is a non-argument to me.  All choices require you to play god.  I find the idea of giving everyone l33t implants less immoral than killing trillions of Geth or dominating the universe.

[Applepie_Svk]

KrAzY WiSh wrote...

Are you saying that Synthesis isn't forced onto everyone?

Do you know such a saying ... ignorance is bliss

[Applepie_Svk]

inversevideo wrote...

The Salarians have shown no propensity for ressurection of dead species. 

Am I the only one who did that quest for long ago dead dinosaurs of whatever which was used as cavalry for Krogans ?

[vonSlash]

SparkyRich wrote...

Ok, so look; I have some really good stuff here. This drug will make you ten times smarter, faster, stronger, more handsome/beautiful, increase your lifespan twenty-fold and make you a billionaire - all with absolutely no deleterious side effects. I'm going to sneak up on you and administer this drug to you against your will - or, at best without your knowledge or consent. Is this morally acceptable?

Assuming that everyone (or almost everyone) else will also have this drug given to them, then there are several well-established schools of moral thought that would say that it is not only morally permissible to administer this drug, but morally required as well.

[Suspire]

The way someone has implied attempted rape is okay here has made me realize I have again spent too much time on this place.

[wizardryforever]

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis is forced...
Which proves the Starchild is either lying to you or doesn't know what the hell he is talking about...


I don't know how you can sit there and say it isn't forced...
Are you ****ing kidding me?

It isn't.  What evidence is everyone basing this on?  Nothing in game shows or implies forcing anything on anyone, and there is dialogue directly contradicting such an assumption.  And I'm the one who inspires sputtering incredulity?

Our only source of information on synthesis is the Catalyst.  Either you believe him or you don't, but if you don't, then you won't be taking the option.  Taking the option implicitly shows that you believe what the Catalyst is saying, at least enough to choose synthesis over the other options.

I also gotta love how everyone clings to their interpretation even in the face of direct evidence to the contrary.  But then, there are still IT fans out there, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[wizardryforever]

fr33stylez wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

OP I'm not sure I am following you correctly.

From my perspective, it does not matter if Starkid tells me the galaxy is ready for synthesis, or even that he is correct. I don't see how any individual can decide to impose a change on any other individual, without permission.

It would be like thinking that hot blonde in the coffee shop is ready for sex, and then, without any communication with her whatsoever, you go over and start having sex with her. It is a violation.

I think folks decide synthesis is okay, because the EC shows happy shiny beings, and there is that great speech by EDI. But how do you know that those who were changed are happy with the change? And are they happy with the change or because they were re-written, and in the re-writing of their DNA, so changed to be happy?

It is a very slippery slope, and there are no answers. Shepard is not a geneticist, she cannot know the price of synthesis, nor does she have the time to study the issue, presuming she could.

Yet here she is being asked to make a life altering decision, for trillions of beings, regarding their very genetic structure, all on the advice of a genocidal machine. And doing this without anyone's permission, I don't understand how that is not forcing a change on the galaxy, by negating the choice/free will of those you are changing.

To continue your example, attempting to sex it up with the blonde can either work, in which case you actually were right about her being ready. 

....WHAT?

I don't think you understand the objections of Synthesis and the context in which 'forced' is being used.

Allow me to clarify (and include the sentence that you snipped to quote me out of context).  "Or it could fail (probably spectacularly), indicating that you were wrong about her being ready."  This is not rape-related.  I meant this in the sense that she either cooperates and you succeed, or she doesn't cooperate and you fail.  Readiness = cooperation in this analogy.  Man, people have dark minds.

[wizardryforever]

SparkyRich wrote...

We already know that the Catalyst is not a moral being. My question still stands; is it morally acceptable to make this decision for virtually every living (and synthetic) thing in the galaxy?

If the Catalyst were to stop the Reapers and then ask everyone if they would choose synthesis to end the fighting at least we'd have a baseline vote to work with.

Yes, it is.  You are unilaterally improving everyone in existence in our galaxy.  I really don't see what is so wrong about that.  I fail to understand the motivation for someone not wanting the upgrade anyway.  Why would someone say no?  I'm curious.

Removing the desire to say no by making the option a complete positive kinda destroys any moral hangups about removing the choice to say no.

And before someone else brings up "Shepard has no right to choose for everyone!" as an argument: yes he does.  In each and every ending (even refuse), Shepard chooses for everyone without any consultation of any kind.  Synthesis is only unique in that it affects everyone on a micro level versus a macro one.  Shepard has been entrusted with ensuring the Crucible fires, and throughout the game, has been given unprecedented authority and power.  The ending is the culmination of Shepard's arc.  It's only fitting that the final choice be this world-shaking.

[Warrior Craess]

it's forced.

Even the premise that organics will try to better themselves by adding technology is forced.

Yes some people would happily augment themselves with technology - becoming cyborgs. However there are nearly as many that would refuse to augment themselves and would strive for perfection of their own person, with out outside influences. Star child speaks in blanket terms, which can be proven false in about 3 seconds.

What about Ashley's revulsion of the Cerberus augmentations? She's never shown any reliance's on implants or cybernetics. Would she be willing to be changed into something that she find revolting?

Javik would probably suicide after being synthesized.

Now lets imagine how the people that were made into husks, would feel, not to mention the Cannibals, Brutes, and Banshee's.

[Applepie_Svk]

wizardryforever wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Synthesis is forced...
Which proves the Starchild is either lying to you or doesn't know what the hell he is talking about...


I don't know how you can sit there and say it isn't forced...
Are you ****ing kidding me?

It isn't.  What evidence is everyone basing this on?  Nothing in game shows or implies forcing anything on anyone, and there is dialogue directly contradicting such an assumption.  And I'm the one who inspires sputtering incredulity?

Are you serious ? Just one person which doesn´t like this change in whole galaxy is enough to say that Synthesis was forced... You have billions of souls in whole galaxy and I highly doubt that everyone will blidnly agree with synthesis, hell I would like to see how will react some caveman which was just changed into cyborg via SPACE MAGIC...

Catalyst forcing you to choose from 3 paths via passive agresion(etc threating thru Reapers), each of them is moraly grey path and he is presenting his desired path as best solution because he said so - there is no evidence how Synthesis will works and what it does without metagamming knowlendge and yet it´s hilarious to blidnly believe into main antagonist´s agenda - it´s like when someone told you to jump from bridge because you won´t hurt yourself and you will blidnly do so, because he said ?

Otherwise Catalyst mentioned that he already tried few solutions but it always failed, so what´s your collateral that now it will work ?

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 06 septembre 2012 - 05:33 .

[Suspire]

wizardryforever wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

OP I'm not sure I am following you correctly.

From my perspective, it does not matter if Starkid tells me the galaxy is ready for synthesis, or even that he is correct. I don't see how any individual can decide to impose a change on any other individual, without permission.

It would be like thinking that hot blonde in the coffee shop is ready for sex, and then, without any communication with her whatsoever, you go over and start having sex with her. It is a violation.

I think folks decide synthesis is okay, because the EC shows happy shiny beings, and there is that great speech by EDI. But how do you know that those who were changed are happy with the change? And are they happy with the change or because they were re-written, and in the re-writing of their DNA, so changed to be happy?

It is a very slippery slope, and there are no answers. Shepard is not a geneticist, she cannot know the price of synthesis, nor does she have the time to study the issue, presuming she could.

Yet here she is being asked to make a life altering decision, for trillions of beings, regarding their very genetic structure, all on the advice of a genocidal machine. And doing this without anyone's permission, I don't understand how that is not forcing a change on the galaxy, by negating the choice/free will of those you are changing.

To continue your example, attempting to sex it up with the blonde can either work, in which case you actually were right about her being ready. 

....WHAT?

I don't think you understand the objections of Synthesis and the context in which 'forced' is being used.

Allow me to clarify (and include the sentence that you snipped to quote me out of context).  "Or it could fail (probably spectacularly), indicating that you were wrong about her being ready."  This is not rape-related.  I meant this in the sense that she either cooperates and you succeed, or she doesn't cooperate and you fail.  Readiness = cooperation in this analogy.  Man, people have dark minds.

"attempted" rape, so it's ok as long as you don't succeed right