348 réponses à ce sujet

[The Twilight God]

Jamie9 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
...is bullsh*t. The narrative dictates indoctrination.

I don't know why IT-ers think IT would be such a good idea. Shepard shouldn't overcome indoctrination (that would be just as narrative-breaking). Once indoctrination has enough of a prescene to be noticable, it's too late.

And we can't beat the Reapers conventionally (clearly dictated by the story and the writers). This means that the only ending we have is basically Refuse.

An indoctrination attempt is taking place. It's up to the player rather or not the indoctrination ultimately succeeds or not. Shepard resists and wins or succombs before he can stop them. Indoctrination is the final boss. Everyone eventually succombs, but Shepard only has to persevere long enough to send the Reapers to hell. He doesn't have to flat out beat indoctrination. Much less "beat it in his sleep", which is absurd. Choosing Synthesis, Control or Refuse can only make sense if Shepard is indoctrinated. The narrative up to that point does not provide any reason for Shepard to suddenly trust the Reapers so much that he will kill himself because they say it's a good idea. The narrative up to that point does not provide any reason for Shepard to think the Reapers can be defeated conventionally. Indoctrintion is a big part of the ME lore. To think otherwise is delusional.

Refuse is giving the Reaper exactly what they want: the continuation of the cycle.

http://social.biowar...9372/1#13419499

Refusal to use the Crucible is tantamount to it never docking at all which is exactly what the Reapers wanted to begin with. Everything they have done up to this point supports this conclusion.

1. The Reapers retrieve the Citadel to prevent the Crucible from docking.
2. The Reapers consolidate forces around the Citadel to prevent the Crucible from docking.
3. The Reapers will inflict severe damage upon the Crucible, if Shield cannot hold them off, as it attempts to dock.
4. The Reapers do not drag an unwilling participant into the synthesis array if Shepard refuses. They shut down the array.
5. The Reapers destroy the Crucible after it has docked if Shepard dallies for too long without making a decision.

The Reapers want Refusal. Refusal is agreeing with the Harvest and allowing it to occur. The blood of trillions is on Shepard's hands.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Han Shot First wrote...

Only Destroy guarantees with absolute certainty that the Reaper threat has been ended for all time. As such it is the only ending where Shepard has truly won.

"Kill 'em, it's the only way to be sure" is an attitude that is far more prevalent with Renegade morality than Paragon.

Choosing Control and hoping that Shepard (or the A.I. imitating Shepard) will retain Shepards morals and ideals, despite that never happening with any other Reaper is a massive gamble. Even worse it is a gamble where trillions of lives are at stake. There is no guarantee that at some point the Shepard entity won't end up turning the Reapers against the galaxy, just as the Catalyst had done before him.

Taking a risk over idealisitic personal beliefs? Hello, Paragon!

Synthesis fails for similar reasons, though it is potentially worse in that it doesn't even have a Shepard entity as guardian. The Catalyst presumably remains in Control. What guarantee is there that he won't later come to view his Synthesis solution as imperfect, and requiring starting afresh with new species?

There's nothing to suggest that the catalyst is still around. The Citadel being destroyed lends more credence to him being dead.

Destroy has another benefit: If the process of turning sapient beings into Reapers actually somehow uploads their conciousness to the machines and doesn't just mimic it, destroying the Reapers frees those organic souls trapped within. It is as much an act of mercy as it is an execution.

You're assuming it's mercy and committing assisted-suicide over an assumption that they want it. What if there are organic souls, possibly even making up the majority of some Reapers, that would prefer to live?

Synthesis is the only path that truly grants mercy here. They all get to live. If they don't want to live, they can off themselves by flying into a sun or black-hole. It can't be a more unfortunate way to go than being hit by an unstable wave of red energy.

[Comsky159]

Han Shot First wrote...

In light of all that; honestly the only real reasons I can think of to choose destroy are to get revenge on the Reapers (avatars of a twisted logic), save face in the wake of TIM's death, or save your own life. None of these to me warrant the destruction of a friend, an entire species and the galactic framework; unless you're one hell of a renegade.

Only Destroy guarantees with absolute certainty that the Reaper threat has been ended for all time. As such it is the only ending where Shepard has truly won.

Since both Control and Synthesis allow the Reapers to continue to exist, there will always remain a possibility that they could once again destroy civilization. Even making Shepard God-King of the Reapers is no guarantee of safety. After all every Reaper that has ever been created, starting with Harbinger, was created from a species that did not set out to become a Reaper and in most cases probably fought them. Despite this fact, every Reaper appears fully committed to converting other other species into Reapers and destroying anyone who resists. Choosing Control and hoping that Shepard (or the A.I. imitating Shepard) will retain Shepards morals and ideals, despite that never happening with any other Reaper is a massive gamble. Even worse it is a gamble where trillions of lives are at stake. There is no guarantee that at some point the Shepard entity won't end up turning the Reapers against the galaxy, just as the Catalyst had done before him.

We get this argument all the time; the 'maybe something will go wrong' tack. Anyone can use pure speculation as the basis for their argument; I can say for instance,that if you chose destroy, the Leviathans will assume the Reaper's place, or perhaps that when Shepard dies the Quarians and Geth will just resume their war and doom the galaxy, or that with the Mass Relay framework severely damaged and entire worlds in ruin trillions more will die of starvation.

You can't argue against any of that, because I'm taking every one of my points out of thin air. When you use this approach against control you're doing exactly the same thing, conjuring a debate from a dream. None of the endings gives us much to work with, but if we are to assume anything it's that each endng defeats the Reapers for good, even the 'buy DLC' epilogue tell us so. If we can't even say that, then what's the point of playing this series?

[erilben]

Senior Cinco wrote...

erilben wrote...

Senior Cinco wrote...
Does anyone really see Anderson as a Renegade?

Why do people think Anderson is this perfect pure paragon? He will support Shepard sacrificing the council in ME1. The characters aren't simply just paragon or renegade.

Who said anything about him being a "pure" Paragon? I just don't see him as a renegade. Look at his story about him and Saren. Saren took a Renegade route and killed thousands. He wasn't at all ok with that.

As far as the characters being one or the other...I ask again...You actually see TIM as a Paragon? Or even a Paragade? There is nothing Paragon about him. That leaves one to only include him in a Renegade aspect.

TIM and Anderson are not really paragon or renegade. But you are saying Anderson is this paragon though, so every choice he would make must be paragon. According to you, Anderson is this "pure" paragon. He will never make a renegade choice, so destroy must be paragon.

[Vigilant111]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Only Destroy guarantees with absolute certainty that the Reaper threat has been ended for all time. As such it is the only ending where Shepard has truly won.

"Kill 'em, it's the only way to be sure" is an attitude that is far more prevalent with Renegade morality than Paragon.

Choosing Control and hoping that Shepard (or the A.I. imitating Shepard) will retain Shepards morals and ideals, despite that never happening with any other Reaper is a massive gamble. Even worse it is a gamble where trillions of lives are at stake. There is no guarantee that at some point the Shepard entity won't end up turning the Reapers against the galaxy, just as the Catalyst had done before him.

Taking a risk over idealisitic personal beliefs? Hello, Paragon!

Synthesis fails for similar reasons, though it is potentially worse in that it doesn't even have a Shepard entity as guardian. The Catalyst presumably remains in Control. What guarantee is there that he won't later come to view his Synthesis solution as imperfect, and requiring starting afresh with new species?

There's nothing to suggest that the catalyst is still around. The Citadel being destroyed lends more credence to him being dead.

Destroy has another benefit: If the process of turning sapient beings into Reapers actually somehow uploads their conciousness to the machines and doesn't just mimic it, destroying the Reapers frees those organic souls trapped within. It is as much an act of mercy as it is an execution.

You're assuming it's mercy and committing assisted-suicide over an assumption that they want it. What if there are organic souls, possibly even making up the majority of some Reapers, that would prefer to live?

Synthesis is the only path that truly grants mercy here. They all get to live. If they don't want to live, they can off themselves by flying into a sun or black-hole. It can't be a more unfortunate way to go than being hit by an unstable wave of red energy.

1. I don't think renegades have morals, renegades have only oneself

2. Citadel is only part of the Catalyst, not all of it

3. We don't know if there are souls, and we don't know if they are still living after being made into goo

[Han Shot First]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Only Destroy guarantees with absolute certainty that the Reaper threat has been ended for all time. As such it is the only ending where Shepard has truly won.

"Kill 'em, it's the only way to be sure" is an attitude that is far more prevalent with Renegade morality than Paragon.

Not when you are talking about giant civilization destroying space Cthulhus that have butchered countless trillions across countless extinction cycles for billions of years. There is no gray area when it comes to the Reapers...they are the very embodiment of evil.

Taking a risk over idealisitic personal beliefs? Hello, Paragon!

Willingly becoming Reaper is the most renegade act in the entire series.

There's nothing to suggest that the catalyst is still around. The Citadel being destroyed lends more credence to him being dead.

The only endings where the Catalyst specifically states that he will be destroyed is Destroy and Control. Not suprisingly he views Synthesis as the ideal solution.

You're assuming it's mercy and committing assisted-suicide over an assumption that they want it. What if there are organic souls, possibly even making up the majority of some Reapers, that would prefer to live?

Synthesis is the only path that truly grants mercy here. They all get to live. If they don't want to live, they can off themselves by flying into a sun or black-hole. It can't be a more unfortunate way to go than being hit by an unstable wave of red energy.

They are Reapers. What they want should not matter one iota to Shepard.

What does matter is what the organic souls trapped within would have wanted before they got turned into Reapers and lost their free will.

Synthesis isn't mercy. Assuming for a moment that the people turned into Reapers survive in some form as part of the Reaper conciousness, Synthesis condemns those people to remain trapped in an abomination.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 07 septembre 2012 - 06:06 .

[The Twilight God]

Fixers0 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...
The narrative dictates indoctrination.

I think that's your imaginary speculation you're talking about.

My thesis is based on solid evidence and facts.

At this point you have offered no rebuttal for my thesis. You just handwave the lore away and shout "bad writting" over and over because you'd rather the writting suck than not be able to have your sunshine and butterflies ending. So between you and me, the narrative dictates indoctrination and we both agree on that. If you don't agree, feel free to rebute my thesis. However, if you cannot, your inability to rebute my thesis dictates your de facto agreement. This is how you have to handle people on the internet as they will never admit that they are wrong.
 
Now you may not like the implications of indoctrination because it strips you of your rainbows and butterflies ending, but it's just something you have to deal with. You're emotional rejection of IT-con is irrelevent as you intellectually accept it.

[Han Shot First]

We get this argument all the time; the 'maybe something will go wrong' tack. Anyone can use pure speculation as the basis for their argument; I can say for instance,that if you chose destroy, the Leviathans will assume the Reaper's place, or perhaps that when Shepard dies the Quarians and Geth will just resume their war and doom the galaxy, or that with the Mass Relay framework severely damaged and entire worlds in ruin trillions more will die of starvation.

You can't argue against any of that, because I'm taking every one of my points out of thin air. When you use this approach against control you're doing exactly the same thing, conjuring a debate from a dream. None of the endings gives us much to work with, but if we are to assume anything it's that each endng defeats the Reapers for good, even the 'buy DLC' epilogue tell us so. If we can't even say that, then what's the point of playing this series?

The Reapers are a demonstrated threat that have annihilated every space faring civilization that has existed in the Milky Way, for billions of years. In all that time they have not once shown mercy. With that track record it isn't wild speculation to say that allowing them to survive also allows them to remain a threat to humanity's survival.

To be clear I'm not saying that the Reapers are gauranteed to return to old habits, only that the only option Shepard has that guarantees they won't is destroying them. Control and Synthesis requires trusting the Reapers to behave.

[Lord Goose]

My thesis is based on solid evidence and facts.

And is irrelevant in the light of the question. OP asked which option fits for a full paragon character better. You already admit that even in your theory Renegade can escape indoctrination scott-free, so it is obviously do not follow the balance between Paragon-Renegade actions.

To be clear I'm not saying that the Reapers are gauranteed to return to old habits, only that the only option Shepard has that guarantees they won't is destroying them. Control and Synthesis requires trusting the Reapers to behave

Leviathans created the guy, who made Reapers and controls them. By choosing Control Shepard is going to replace that guy. Reapers don't really have to behave in that case, unless you assume that they are willingly served Catalyst goals.

And if that happened, the Reapers may start reaping again.  Or performing some other horrific acts upon the galaxy in the name of teh Control Entity's "solution"

Given that Control Entity doesn't have "protect life at all costs" goal, I find it doutful. But being "risky" option has a little relevance to it not being Paragon. Freeing Rachni Queen is risky, since it could have doomed the Galaxy. Curing the Krogan is risky, since it could have doomed the Galaxy. Rewritting geth heretics makes them stronger, and puts the Galaxy in danger. Letting Balak go is risky... Well, where is a quite a list.

So you enslaved a race instead? Is that Paragon? What if people go against the new Shepard AI?

Reapers are:

1. Catalyst accomplices, and when they deserve their share of punishment. Penal labor (compensation of damage) and permanent incarceration in Dark Space after they rebuild the galaxy.

2. Tools of the Catalyst, not truly alive. In that case where is no moral dilemma about enslaving them.

3. Catalyst victims. But even so, it is better to replace Catalyst, since Paragon wouldn't force them to harvest species against their will.

So, yeah. It is more Paragon than shooting through innocent victims, or forcibly changing entire galaxy.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 07 septembre 2012 - 07:10 .

[Kataphrut94]

I've always thought of Destroy as Renegade, Synthesis as Paragon and Control as neutral. Destroy as being closest to renegade is obvious - sacrifice one race to destroy another ties it quite nicely to the Renegade response to Garrus' conversation about the brutal calculus of war. Synthesis is Paragon because it has you making a completely selfless sacrifice for the greater good of all - it feels like it ties quite nicely to Paragon Shepard's view that synthetic life is just as worthy of existence as organic life.

Control I reckon is neutral because it is self-serving and unconnected to the issue at large - you're neither agreeing or disagreeing with the Catalyst's solution, you're just taking matters out of his hands. This is also evidenced by the fact that Control is the only choice which is affected by Paragon and Renegade aligment.

[Comsky159]

Han Shot First wrote...

We get this argument all the time; the 'maybe something will go wrong' tack. Anyone can use pure speculation as the basis for their argument; I can say for instance,that if you chose destroy, the Leviathans will assume the Reaper's place, or perhaps that when Shepard dies the Quarians and Geth will just resume their war and doom the galaxy, or that with the Mass Relay framework severely damaged and entire worlds in ruin trillions more will die of starvation.

You can't argue against any of that, because I'm taking every one of my points out of thin air. When you use this approach against control you're doing exactly the same thing, conjuring a debate from a dream. None of the endings gives us much to work with, but if we are to assume anything it's that each endng defeats the Reapers for good, even the 'buy DLC' epilogue tell us so. If we can't even say that, then what's the point of playing this series?

The Reapers are a demonstrated threat that have annihilated every space faring civilization that has existed in the Milky Way, for billions of years. In all that time they have not once shown mercy. With that track record it isn't wild speculation to say that allowing them to survive also allows them to remain a threat to humanity's survival.

To be clear I'm not saying that the Reapers are gauranteed to return to old habits, only that the only option Shepard has that guarantees they won't is destroying them. Control and Synthesis requires trusting the Reapers to behave.

The reason the Reapers have never shown mercy is because they were intrinsically tools of the catalyst, operating under it's calculating, ruthless rationale. That catalyst is now gone, having been replaced with Shepard; now outfitted with the strengths of both artificial and organic life and the weaknesses of neither. You don't have to trust the Reapers, you just have to trust Shepard, or rather 'The Shepard'.

Anyway what I've been trying to say is that there is always potential for dire consequence to arise regardless of whether you choose control or destroy; consequence which may conceivably result in the galaxy's demise at some point in the distant future. Unfortunately we can prove nothing.

Without any substantive proof or even the slightest hint beyond your own headcanon all we have is the presumption that the Reaper threat is gone for good. Until something proves this presumption incorrect that is where we should stand on the endings. I actually believe given the history of organic and synthetic life that control is far less risky on a long term basis but don't know that for sure any more than you know that control is going to end in the Reapers going haywire or something.

[RadicalDisconnect]

There are no paragon or renegade endings.
There are no paragon or renegade endings.
There are no paragon or renegade endings.
There are no paragon or renegade endings.
There are no paragon or renegade endings.
There are no paragon or renegade endings.

[Veloric Wu]

Note that Control can be both Renegade and Paragon, as it provides different conversation based on ur being Paragon/Renegade.

I personally think Synthesis is a more Renegade. You did what can ensure a galactic peace, but you've also sacrificed a great deal---I'm sure most people here can explain what I meant

[Comsky159]

FeriktheCerberus wrote...

Note that Control can be both Renegade and Paragon, as it provides different conversation based on ur being Paragon/Renegade.

I personally think Synthesis is a more Renegade. You did what can ensure a galactic peace, but you've also sacrificed a great deal---I'm sure most people here can explain what I meant

Agreed on both points. I actually like the polarity in control, the only ending where 'who' Shepard was; his personality and values; can claim any credence. It's easy to forget that and misconstrue the two control endings as the one.

[shodiswe]

ThaDPG wrote...

Well, TIM, the main antagonist in ME 3, wants to control the Reapers, so why would you tell TIM he's effed up and that isn't right, but then turn around and pick control anyway? And why would you force a genetic change on every sentient being in the galaxy without their consent? They both sound renegade to me. I gotta go with the people that choose Destroy or refuse as the "Paragon" choices

That's because at that time Shepard didn't know what would happen later, to him TIM couldn't promise control and he seemed controled by the reapers, which was proven by the fact that he had to shoot himself to stop himself.
What Shepard was against was taking the risk that TIM couldn't control them, because every cycle had had people pretending to be trying to control the reapers.
This whole way of thinking, wanting to be incontrol, deluding your victims that they are actualy in control probably comes from the Catalysts control attempts on the Leviatans that were obsessed with these feelings and need to control everyone around them.
The Reapers were probably genuinely allarmed by Mr Lawsons(not indoctrinated) sucess at controlling reaper thrals and possibly reaper control, something that would be similar to what the Leviatans were using to control others.
Letting this knowledge spread to the "lesser specis of the galaxy" would possibly make the harvest harder.

As for synthesis, the end results might actualy be good, it depends on the Leviathans and if people are actualy free to do what they truly want. That is however what EDI claims so at this point I tihnk that's what we have to belive sicne the EC was supposed to bring closure.

[Ieldra]

How you judge the endings as a Paragon depends on which kind of Paragon you are. I have identified three different kinds (people can have attributes of all three at varying priorities):

(1) Utilitarian Paragons are mainly concerned with the preservation of life. If you're of this kind, both Control and Synthesis will appear attractive choices since they both keep the synthetics alive and have the lowest death-count.

(2) Idealist Paragons are also concerned with saving lives, but in addition they're the kind who'll assume a general goodness in people. They're likely to give people a second chance and believe in redemption. Most notably, they don't believe in irredeemable evil. Synthesis would be the preferred choice of this kind.

(3) Traditionalist Paragons are mainly concerned with protecting the integrity and freedom of organic life. Synthetic life may or may not be equal to organic life in their view, but the idea of being dominated by a synthetic (Control) is unlikely to appeal to them, and they assume an inviolable sanctity of organic life and for that reason, are likely to find Synthesis abhorrent. Destroy would be the preferred choice of this kind.

Note that two prevalent reasons for choosing Destroy are 100% Renegade:

(1) "I won't let the Reapers get away with this" - Renegades believe in punishment, Paragons in redemption.
(2) "Destroy is the only way to guarantee the Reapers won't do something bad again." - Renegades kill to make 100% sure, Paragons believe in giving second chances.

There is really no arguing this. Those mindsets are established as Renegade repeatedly throughout all three games. If you choose Destroy for these reasons, you are making a Renegade decision.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 07 septembre 2012 - 08:37 .

[LtAdams2247 Origin]

I don't think the endings follow the same paragon/renegade structure the rest of the game did. What's the right thing to do is what you must find out yourself. Also something that says something about you so chose wisely ;-)

If you're asking what other people did and why, I went with control. The universe stays as diverse as I have come to love it and nobody but Shepard (the one making the choice) has to die for it.

[2Shepards]

I hope op that you realize that if you have to ask this question in the first place there is a serious freaking problem with the ending(s).

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

My reasons are traditionalist paragon. My motives are renegade. The reapers do not deserve another second chance. They had 20,000+ second chances. Must make 100% sure it doesn't happen.

Still all the endings suck. I'm still waiting to crawl out of the pile of garbage for doing the right thing.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 07 septembre 2012 - 09:51 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Vigilant111 wrote...

1. I don't think renegades have morals, renegades have only oneself

Then you aren't thinking at all.

3. We don't know if there are souls, and we don't know if they are still living after being made into goo

We do know that there are gestalt intelligences, and we  do know the Mass Effect universe's not-so-subtle answer to the question of 'do AI's have souls?'

[Vigilant111]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

1. I don't think renegades have morals, renegades have only oneself

Then you aren't thinking at all.

3. We don't know if there are souls, and we don't know if they are still living after being made into goo

We do know that there are gestalt intelligences, and we  do know the Mass Effect universe's not-so-subtle answer to the question of 'do AI's have souls?'

1. Hey, don't just insult me and walk away, you want to refute my proposal, then you have got some explaining to do

3. I am not talking about whether AIs have souls.  Read the post properly. Yes, gestalt intelligences which support the slaughter of so many

[Ieldra]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

How you judge the endings as a Paragon depends on which kind of Paragon you are. I have identified three different kinds (people can have attributes of all three at varying priorities):

(1) Utilitarian Paragons are mainly concerned with the preservation of life. If you're of this kind, both Control and Synthesis will appear attractive choices since they both keep the synthetics alive and have the lowest death-count.

(2) Idealist Paragons are also concerned with saving lives, but in addition they're the kind who'll assume a general goodness in people. They're likely to give people a second chance and believe in redemption. Most notably, they don't believe in irredeemable evil. Synthesis would be the preferred choice of this kind.

(3) Traditionalist Paragons are mainly concerned with protecting the integrity and freedom of organic life. Synthetic life may or may not be equal to organic life in their view, but the idea of being dominated by a synthetic (Control) is unlikely to appeal to them, and they assume an inviolable sanctity of organic life and for that reason, are likely to find Synthesis abhorrent. Destroy would be the preferred choice of this kind.

Note that two prevalent reasons for choosing Destroy are 100% Renegade:

(1) "I won't let the Reapers get away with this" - Renegades believe in punishment, Paragons in redemption.
(2) "Destroy is the only way to guarantee the Reapers won't do something bad again." - Renegades kill to make 100% sure, Paragons believe in giving second chances.

There is really no arguing this. Those mindsets are established as Renegade repeatedly throughout all three games. If you choose Destroy for these reasons, you are making a Renegade decision.

I agree with your breakdown of the Paragon factions, but I don't agree with the bolded part.

1) I'm all for a good redemption story and my Shepard is down with that, but not when it comes to a race of sentient hybrid machines that want to wipe all advanced organic life off the face of the galaxy just to created another Reaper for the next harvest. They have no place among society.

Oh, I agree that's a valid reason to choose Destroy. But it is *still* Renegade. The Paragon would argue that it's exactly when you feel you can't forgive that you should think about doing so nonetheless.
What you're doing is assuming that Paragon is always right, and always comfortable. It isn't. It's easy to follow your intuition and call for punishment, not so easy to step away and consider the matter in a more detached way. 

2) You know what the goal and mindset from day one (when you find out about their existence)  in ME was? To destroy the Reapers. Paragon, Renegade, Paragade, Renegon, whatever; that was the goal, and that is indisputable. I'm aware that Synthesis and Control aren't presented to you in ME or ME2, but I held steadfast that it was my goal through the entire series, and I'm almost certain I have never completed a Renegade playthrough for the entire ME series. I am a true Paragon at heart.

Well, no. From day one stopping the cycle was the goal, and doing it by destroying the Reapers was most definitely not my preferred method, nor was it canon. It's just that destroying them appeared like the only achievable way to do it for some time, but I was never comfortable with it. Right from the first encounter with Sovereign, my goal was to stop the cycle and if possible, gain knowledge about what the Reapers were and why they were doing this. I always found the Reapers interesting, and being railroaded into destroying them, especially without getting to know their background, would have been an epic disappointment for me. This was a constant for all of my Shepards. I wanted to save the galaxy, and I wanted to decipher the mysteries of the Reapers.

I agree with your ideals behind your reasoning, but I don't agree with the reasoning when it comes to the Reapers. I've always found Synthesis to be unconscionable; forcibly altering people's DNA in the name of "peace," and Control is far too dangerous for me ("abosolute powers corrupts absolutely"). I'm normally not an "ends justify the means" kind of guy, and I stated so in the Miri thread, but I am when it comes to this.

Remember, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you're making a Renegade decision in this.

[S0DAP0P]

As odd as it sounds I saw Destroy as the right choice. No paragon, no renegade. You went into it knowing what had to be done and you did it.

It was the right thing to do.