1304 réponses à ce sujet

[wantedman dan]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Well...it was implied they would be " targeted" but we see no evidence of this afterwards beyond EDI's name on the normandy wall. The geth are not shown or even mentioned. It's vague.

And in every other ending, they appear. It's pretty clear they died.

[Geneaux486]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
the reaper are way too stron in the 3rd game. it took centuries to whipe out all protheans and there, the reper had the advantage of isolating every star system by shutting down the relay network,

the reaper are not bashing the universe that hard because they are powerful, they do it, because the writers want them to do so.

Incorrect.  It took centuries for the Reapers to harvest the Protheans, not simply kill them.  If their mission was to simply wipe out organic life, it would be a simple matter for them.  The fact is the only reason organics had a chance was because total destruction was ultimately not their true goal, but rather it was preservation.  Their immense strength in the third game is not contradictory of what little we knew about them and had seen ourselves in previous games.

[Dr_Extrem]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

All war is inhumane and all life is shades of grey. Welcome to reality.

war is inhumane, because life is degraded. in war, shades of gray exist, because people in the field are willing to do horrible things. still, the decision to do inhumane things is up to them. 

a helicopter pilot may kill an enemy by pulling the tripper - but is is his own decision to make jokes about the lifes he just took. (bye, bye miss american pie)

War is inhumane no matter what decisions you make. There is NO clean way to wage war, which is why it should be the last resort. But when it is thrust on you ( as it is by the Reapers), you are justified to do all in your power to survive. Unless you are a naive pacifist. In that case, why are you playing a game where you shoot people?

(btw. this is a philosophical approach to the justification of genocide - so dont try to insult me)

so .. if the sh*tstorm is hard enough, we throw our "highly valued" principles over board? i never stated that there is a clean war. i am definatlely not that naive. but people still decide to throw their humanity away (or to act like scum)

who justifies it? .. if the result is your only justification, then we have a big problem.

No the problem is that you don't understand that there will be situations if you are in danger where your principles will have to be thrown overboard or you will be violated, tortured, murdered, enslaved etc. If it's for self-protection, how is it more evil than the person forcing you to do it to protect yourself? It's chastising the victim for sticking up for themselves.

BTW, the naive part wasn't meant as in insult. it's a description I attached to absolute pacifism. It really is naive to believe you should never do any violence ever, even to defend yourself or others.

(please dont assume, that i dont understand the matter. thats downright insulting.)


i understand and know that there are extreme situations, where extreme decisions have to me made - but i am not trying to whitewash or justify my actions.

the moment i push the red button, i commit genocide. end of the line.

if i choose destroy, i am aware of my crime against basic human/alien rights. there is nothing that makes me better at this point, than the reaper. i would have to face the consequences of my actions.

[BatmanTurian]

wantedman dan wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Well...it was implied they would be " targeted" but we see no evidence of this afterwards beyond EDI's name on the normandy wall. The geth are not shown or even mentioned. It's vague.

And in every other ending, they appear. It's pretty clear they died.

Fair assumption, I suppose.

[Kabooooom]

Well...it was implied they would be " targeted" but we see no evidence of this afterwards beyond EDI's name on the normandy wall. The geth are not shown or even mentioned. It's vague.

Only in the EC. In the original ending, the Catalyst tells you "this will kill all Geth". The EC was only changed to be more vague so that people can headcanon since there was such an uproar over it.

But let's be honest, EDI still dies, the Geth probably still die too - Catalyst was just trying to sugarcoat it. It was better with the original dialogue - it drove the point home that the Catalyst does not favor this choice, and made you more or less inclined to pick it as a result.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:06 .

[Aaleel]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Well...it was implied they would be " targeted" but we see no evidence of this afterwards beyond EDI's name on the normandy wall. The geth are not shown or even mentioned. It's vague.

This is actually beside the point.  You don't even know if the AI is telling the truth in the first place or just trying to stop you from using the weapon that is about to defeat its side.

[BatmanTurian]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

All war is inhumane and all life is shades of grey. Welcome to reality.

war is inhumane, because life is degraded. in war, shades of gray exist, because people in the field are willing to do horrible things. still, the decision to do inhumane things is up to them. 

a helicopter pilot may kill an enemy by pulling the tripper - but is is his own decision to make jokes about the lifes he just took. (bye, bye miss american pie)

War is inhumane no matter what decisions you make. There is NO clean way to wage war, which is why it should be the last resort. But when it is thrust on you ( as it is by the Reapers), you are justified to do all in your power to survive. Unless you are a naive pacifist. In that case, why are you playing a game where you shoot people?

(btw. this is a philosophical approach to the justification of genocide - so dont try to insult me)

so .. if the sh*tstorm is hard enough, we throw our "highly valued" principles over board? i never stated that there is a clean war. i am definatlely not that naive. but people still decide to throw their humanity away (or to act like scum)

who justifies it? .. if the result is your only justification, then we have a big problem.

No the problem is that you don't understand that there will be situations if you are in danger where your principles will have to be thrown overboard or you will be violated, tortured, murdered, enslaved etc. If it's for self-protection, how is it more evil than the person forcing you to do it to protect yourself? It's chastising the victim for sticking up for themselves.

BTW, the naive part wasn't meant as in insult. it's a description I attached to absolute pacifism. It really is naive to believe you should never do any violence ever, even to defend yourself or others.

(please dont assume, that i dont understand the matter. thats downright insulting.)


i understand and know that there are extreme situations, where extreme decisions have to me made - but i am not trying to whitewash or justify my actions.

the moment i push the red button, i commit genocide. end of the line.

if i choose destroy, i am aware of my crime against basic human/alien rights. there is nothing that makes me better at this point, than the reaper. i would have to face the consequences of my actions.

Sure, you'd have to look at yourself in the mirror every morning and being around Joker would probably be more than a little uncomfortable, but the rest of the galaxy would think you were a huge hero. So it's as it should be, a bittersweet victory.

[Dr_Extrem]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...
the reaper are way too stron in the 3rd game. it took centuries to whipe out all protheans and there, the reper had the advantage of isolating every star system by shutting down the relay network,

the reaper are not bashing the universe that hard because they are powerful, they do it, because the writers want them to do so.

Incorrect.  It took centuries for the Reapers to harvest the Protheans, not simply kill them.  If their mission was to simply wipe out organic life, it would be a simple matter for them.  The fact is the only reason organics had a chance was because total destruction was ultimately not their true goal, but rather it was preservation.  Their immense strength in the third game is not contradictory of what little we knew about them and had seen ourselves in previous games.

the protheans were not "compatible" to become a new reaper. they were not harvested, they were repurposed and ultimately obliterated.

[BatmanTurian]

Aaleel wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Well...it was implied they would be " targeted" but we see no evidence of this afterwards beyond EDI's name on the normandy wall. The geth are not shown or even mentioned. It's vague.

This is actually beside the point.  You don't even know if the AI is telling the truth in the first place or just trying to stop you from using the weapon that is about to defeat its side.

Yes, all this is assuming he isn't playing loose with the facts.

[Kabooooom]

the protheans were not "compatible" to become a new reaper. they were not harvested, they were repurposed and ultimately obliterated.

Although now they apparently had more than the Collector base, the ship the Normandy destroyed, and the ship James destroyed.

Those Collectors are a sneaky bunch.

[wantedman dan]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Well...it was implied they would be " targeted" but we see no evidence of this afterwards beyond EDI's name on the normandy wall. The geth are not shown or even mentioned. It's vague.

This is actually beside the point.  You don't even know if the AI is telling the truth in the first place or just trying to stop you from using the weapon that is about to defeat its side.

Yes, all this is assuming he isn't playing loose with the facts.

Yes. Bioware is deliberately messing with you by saying a) The Geth would be targeted, and not showing them in the epilogue scenes.

[Geneaux486]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
the protheans were not "compatible" to become a new reaper. they were not harvested, they were repurposed and ultimately obliterated.

How do you know that?  Because EDI speculated it based on very limited information?  The Protheans being unharvestable was EDI's best guess, not canon, and even if she were right, we know from talking to Javik (and even from EDI's same train of thought as the Prothean Reaper's failure) that the Reapers still attempted to create a Prothean Reaper, meaning that yes, they were harvested.  My point still stands.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:10 .

[BatmanTurian]

wantedman dan wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Well...it was implied they would be " targeted" but we see no evidence of this afterwards beyond EDI's name on the normandy wall. The geth are not shown or even mentioned. It's vague.

This is actually beside the point.  You don't even know if the AI is telling the truth in the first place or just trying to stop you from using the weapon that is about to defeat its side.

Yes, all this is assuming he isn't playing loose with the facts.

Yes. Bioware is deliberately messing with you by saying a) The Geth would be targeted, and not showing them in the epilogue scenes.

I'm just acknowledging the possibility as a hypothetical.

[Dr_Extrem]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

All war is inhumane and all life is shades of grey. Welcome to reality.

war is inhumane, because life is degraded. in war, shades of gray exist, because people in the field are willing to do horrible things. still, the decision to do inhumane things is up to them. 

a helicopter pilot may kill an enemy by pulling the tripper - but is is his own decision to make jokes about the lifes he just took. (bye, bye miss american pie)

War is inhumane no matter what decisions you make. There is NO clean way to wage war, which is why it should be the last resort. But when it is thrust on you ( as it is by the Reapers), you are justified to do all in your power to survive. Unless you are a naive pacifist. In that case, why are you playing a game where you shoot people?

(btw. this is a philosophical approach to the justification of genocide - so dont try to insult me)

so .. if the sh*tstorm is hard enough, we throw our "highly valued" principles over board? i never stated that there is a clean war. i am definatlely not that naive. but people still decide to throw their humanity away (or to act like scum)

who justifies it? .. if the result is your only justification, then we have a big problem.

No the problem is that you don't understand that there will be situations if you are in danger where your principles will have to be thrown overboard or you will be violated, tortured, murdered, enslaved etc. If it's for self-protection, how is it more evil than the person forcing you to do it to protect yourself? It's chastising the victim for sticking up for themselves.

BTW, the naive part wasn't meant as in insult. it's a description I attached to absolute pacifism. It really is naive to believe you should never do any violence ever, even to defend yourself or others.

(please dont assume, that i dont understand the matter. thats downright insulting.)


i understand and know that there are extreme situations, where extreme decisions have to me made - but i am not trying to whitewash or justify my actions.

the moment i push the red button, i commit genocide. end of the line.

if i choose destroy, i am aware of my crime against basic human/alien rights. there is nothing that makes me better at this point, than the reaper. i would have to face the consequences of my actions.

Sure, you'd have to look at yourself in the mirror every morning and being around Joker would probably be more than a little uncomfortable, but the rest of the galaxy would think you were a huge hero. So it's as it should be, a bittersweet victory.

in that case, the rest of the galaxy could kiss my scarred a**. they would not have to live with my decisions. i know how it is to be insulted for things that happend 3 generations before me.

it does not matter if the rest of the galaxy thinks i am a hero .. i would still be a genocidal mass murderer. perception does not alter events.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:12 .

[knightnblu]

Webster's defines genocide as:
 
The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.
 
Shepard did not engage in genocide. He did not intend for the Geth or for EDI to perish as the result of his decision to destroy the Reapers. The only other two options both required Shepard to trust the Catalyst.
 
Such trust was necessary to believe that the Catalyst was not lying to him about either control or synthesis and that the Catalyst would not use either to backdoor Shepard. We know that the AI is insane from it's statements and from the statements of Leviathan. We know that it is still hostile because it admits that it controls the Reapers and initiated the Reapers as its solution to its prime directive, but yet it does not call off the Reapers when it admits that its solution is no longer tenable.
 
Therefore, the continuation of slaughter across the board is used to force Shepard to action. Further, the AI has been trying to kill Shepard for the past 2.5 years and according to the Catalyst the Crucible is not much more than a giant battery. The Catalyst claims that life is preserved, but I submit that he no more preserves life by reducing it down to its elemental DNA than water is preserved by reducing it down to oxygen and hydrogen and storing the gasses.
 
Where is the basis for trust? There is none.
 
This leaves destroy as the only viable option. Destroy offers certainty that the Reaper threat will be ended, the AI will be taken care of, and that the slaughter will in fact stop. The cost of this choice is the consequential destruction of the Geth, EDI, and Shepard. Had that choice included my LI, humanity, and myself I still would have chosen destroy and that would not have created a genocide any more than my killing of the Geth was a genocide. Why did EDI and the Geth have to die? Because their intelligence was predicated upon Reaper code.
 
Was it murder? I think that it was. Shepard caused the death of his friend EDI, he caused the death of another friend's people, the Geth. Did he hatch some plot to systematically erase them from the fabric of the universe? Hardly. Was it wrong? I don't believe that it was. At least it was no more wrong than killing 300K plus Batarians in Arrival.
 
As a student of ethics, I can find no wrong in Shepard's actions if he picks destroy. There is no basis of trust for control or synthesis and synthesis is a nightmare from an ethical perspective. That said, there is no rational basis to choose either control or synthesis because you cannot say that you trust the Catalyst unless you metagame it. Therefore, the only remaining option from a trust and ethical perspective is destroy even when you include the deaths of EDI and the Geth.
 
At worst, one can accuse Shepard of justifiable murder, but that is about all you can muster from a rational perspective. Would I have been happier if I could have just taken out the Reapers and myself and left the Geth and EDI alone? Absolutely, but that wasn't part of the deal. Wringing your hands and moaning about the universe being unfair won't change the facts.

[Aaleel]

wantedman dan wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Well...it was implied they would be " targeted" but we see no evidence of this afterwards beyond EDI's name on the normandy wall. The geth are not shown or even mentioned. It's vague.

This is actually beside the point.  You don't even know if the AI is telling the truth in the first place or just trying to stop you from using the weapon that is about to defeat its side.

Yes, all this is assuming he isn't playing loose with the facts.

Yes. Bioware is deliberately messing with you by saying a) The Geth would be targeted, and not showing them in the epilogue scenes.

The enemy who you're about to kill told you this, not Bioware.  And using the Geth not being in epilogue scenes as a basis for believing or not believing the AI is metagaming.

We're talking about the first time your Shepard stepped on the Crucible and talked to this AI.

[Geneaux486]

The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

Exactly. A Shepard that picked destroy did so knowing full well that the Geth would be killed, meaning it was deliberate.

[BatmanTurian]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Sure, you'd have to look at yourself in the mirror every morning and being around Joker would probably be more than a little uncomfortable, but the rest of the galaxy would think you were a huge hero. So it's as it should be, a bittersweet victory.

in that case, the rest of the galaxy could kiss my scarred a**. they would not have to live with my decisions. i know how it is to be insulted for things that happend 3 generations before me.

it does not matter if the rest of the galaxy thinks i am a hero .. i would still be a mass murderer.

Well.... yes, you can be emo about it or realize the positives, that you saved billions or trillions of people and the countless others who are not yet born, and that you have the gratitude of all of those people.

[Heimdall]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Well...it was implied they would be " targeted" but we see no evidence of this afterwards beyond EDI's name on the normandy wall. The geth are not shown or even mentioned. It's vague.

This is actually beside the point.  You don't even know if the AI is telling the truth in the first place or just trying to stop you from using the weapon that is about to defeat its side.

Yes, all this is assuming he isn't playing loose with the facts.

I get that but I don't really buy that the Catalyst is lying about everything.  The Reapers have never actually lied to our faces before.

And if it could lie, why would it tell you about Destroy in the first place, much less offer it as the only option in some cases?

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:15 .

[Taboo]

But what if the Geth are dead?

[Aaleel]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

Exactly. A Shepard that picked destroy did so knowing full well that the Geth would be killed, meaning it was deliberate.

But Shepard didn't do it with the purpose of wiping out Geth and Geth only.  That's what genocide is.  You targeted a specific race based solely on what they were or believe in and decided to wipe out them and only them.

[KotorEffect3]

The target was the reapers, the geth were collateral damage. Yes Shepard knew they would go down when the catalyst told him that destroy would destroy all synthetics but it was the only way to do destroy the reapers. Every species that was fighting on earth and in the skies over earth was commited to do what it takes to destroy the reapers, including the geth.  You can call it genocide if you want but to me it was justified considering the circumstances.

Modifié par KotorEffect3, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:16 .

[Geneaux486]

Aaleel wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

Exactly. A Shepard that picked destroy did so knowing full well that the Geth would be killed, meaning it was deliberate.

But Shepard didn't do it with the purpose of wiping out Geth and Geth only.  That's what genocide is.  You targeted a specific race based solely on what they were or believe in and decided to wipe out them and only them.

He did it with the purpose of wiping out synthetics because they were synthetics.  That's how destroy was explained to him by the Catalyst.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 08 octobre 2012 - 11:15 .