1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...
i did it to destroy the reapers, the geth were an unfortunate sacrifice

You still knew exactly what would happen to them when you shot the tube, and you still knowingly shot the tube, it's still deliberate.

no, it isn't.  i dont trust the leader of my enemy beleive it or not

he also said i'd die, look how that turned out

He never actually said you'd die, just that you a partly synthetics if you were considering your life without them. And if you don't believe your enemy why are you shooting the tube to begin with? He's the one who told you it would work.

he discourages destroy.  the other two are supported by the reapers.

It doesn't 'discourage' destroy, it merely states that it won't work and the cycle would continue. There is not other discussion by the catalyst on the subject of destroy as the best/worse case scenerio.

[Heimdall]

Samtheman63 wrote...

gen·o·cide/ˈjenəˌsīd/
Noun:
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.



Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"


genocide (ˈdʒɛnəʊˌsaɪd)

— n
the policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group



the destroy ending fits neither of these descritions, i cant be bothered to find anymore, its clearly not genocide

It fits the first description.

The geth could certainly be described as a national group, even if their exact circumstances are a little more unique.  If you modify the definition for a scifi setting, they could count as a species group.

The action is Shepard's knowing and and deliberate action.  If Shepard knows the consequences of his actions and decides to take them anyway, he intended those consequences.  He doesn't have to like that consequence, but for it to be an unintended consequence would requires lack of knowledge.

They are killed.

What part of this does not fit the definition?

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 09 octobre 2012 - 11:27 .

[Heimdall]

drayfish wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

drayfish wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

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

'Hey, it's all just fiction anyway; they're just pixels and game code...' (so then why does it matter to you what their deaths are called?)

I find this all extraordinarily shocking, and frankly rather cowardly - particularly repeatedly calling anyone who wants to show the dead the respect they deserve by acknowledging their slaughter appropriately an 'emo'. ...I mean, seriously.

Again, I counter that it's a story in a game. Quit your insipid sermonizing. They really are just pixels with voice-overs. They actually don't even exist. I obviously would not make this choice in real life, because I'll probably never have to wipe out dogs and my best friend to kill a race of omnicidal, parasitic cyborgs. Would I make that choice in a game because it railroads me into it? Yes. If you can't realize that this is all fiction, you need to learn to separate reality and fantasy. Condemning others for an action taken in a role-playing game is like trying  FPS enthusiasts in a court of law for all the thousands or millions of npc and players they killed while they were playing video games.

This whole argument is overly emotional nonsense for this very reason, hence my reasons for saying Emo. Being emo is being overly-sensitive and full of angst. This definition fits the melodrama going on in this thread. None of this stuff is real. It didn't actually happen. I made a choice and I'm fine with it. You're not so you made another. I disagree with your choice but I'm not going to start calling you names for it. Seriously, it's just fiction and pixels. I feel like I'm the only sane person left on BSN here.

Sorry: you 'welcomed everyone to reality', but want to remind everyone that 'reality' is just all pixels and voice-overs and not to be paid attention to?

While obviously everyone in this forum is aware none of this is real life (I'm pretty sure that no one here is insane), fiction is how human beings play out moral quandaries, how they contextualise and explore their own psyche and understand themselves; what we hold sacred, what we hope to immortalise and perpetuate of ourselves. That is why we have carried narrative, in all its forms, with us from the very beginnings of civilisation. It has weight, and has significance. If you literally believe that there is no purpose in discussing the subject matter of a fiction then - firstly, I'm not precisely sure what of value you are hoping to find in the Story section of this forum - but secondly you seem to have metagamed your way out of the experience of the story itself - which is a shame (but frankly none of my business).

Also, I don't think the purpose of this thread - or what the majority of it has been, anyway, is to condemn players for making a particular choice (unfortunately recrimination and bile has been the bi-product of Bioware's nasty moral meat grinder ending, but I don't think that's the intent here), more it has been an effort to verbalise what the game itself (in all its pixels and graphics and lights) is trying to impress upon the audience: Destroy includes a component of Genocide; just as Synthesis contains a component of Eugenics; and Control contains Totalitarianism.

That is the ugly moral relativity Bioware wanted to (in your words) railroad their players into confronting. It is therefore unhelpful to pretend that these horrors are not part of the conclusion, because clearly the fiction believes they are a fundamental price that must be paid for peace.

Extremely well put

[MegaSovereign]

Genocide I choose you.

[drayfish]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Genocide I choose you.

Worst.  Pokemon.  Ever.

[Reorte]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...
i did it to destroy the reapers, the geth were an unfortunate sacrifice

You still knew exactly what would happen to them when you shot the tube, and you still knowingly shot the tube, it's still deliberate.

There's a great big difference between targetting something knowing that there will be innocent victims caught up in it and deliberately targetting those innocent victims. Only the second case can be genocide. The first one might still be a war crime if the innocent lives lost are completely out of proportion but it's a different crime.

At its worst it's analgous to the difference between manslaughter and murder.

[Obadiah]

Lord Aesir wrote...
...
What part of this does not fit the definition?

That would be the implied "Shepard committed a war crime" or "Bioware wrote a war crime" part.

If we were discussing this as one would discuss a homicide (this happens every time Shepard willfully kills someone, regardless of reason), there would be no issue, since the crime is actually murder. But the way the pro-genoes are using it, it  is clearly meant to be an accusation or admission of guilt, which Destroy would not be at any reasonable war crimes tribunal.

Modifié par Obadiah, 10 octobre 2012 - 01:39 .

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...
...
What part of this does not fit the definition?

That would be the implied "Shepard committed a war crime" or "Bioware wrote a war crime" part.

If we were discussing this as one would discuss a homicide (this happens every time Shepard willfully kills someone, regardless of reason), there would be no issue, since the crime is actually murder. But the way the pro-genoes are using it, it  is clearly meant to be an accusation or admission of guilt, which Destroy would not be at any reasonable war crimes tribunal.

You seem to be mistaking 'intent' with 'malice'.  Shepard doesn't want to exterminate a race because he/she hates them; but he/she does need to exterminate a race because it achieves a larger end.  It is the targeting of a race for destruction; it's still genocide, by definition.

Again, you may moralise it as 'necessary', but this does not change the English language.


(EDIT: Also, can I immediately plead for sanity and beg that the term 'Pro-Geno' never be used again, by either side of this discussion?  It is powerfully reductive.)

Modifié par drayfish, 10 octobre 2012 - 02:24 .

[Rafficus III]

Play the Geth on MP, destroy suddenly becomes a lot easier to digest.

[Obadiah]

drayfish wrote...
...
You seem to be mistaking 'intent' with 'malice'.  Shepard doesn't want to exterminate a race because he/she hates them; but he/she does need to exterminate a race because it achieves a larger end.  It is the targeting of a race for destruction; it's still genocide, by definition.

Again, you may moralise it as 'necessary', but this does not change the English language.


(EDIT: Also, can I immediately plead for sanity and beg that the term 'Pro-Geno' never be used again, by either side of this discussion?  It is powerfully reductive.)

Maybe that would have merit if I was the one playing games with the English language.

Genocide is a loaded word, and in the absence of actually making an argument that Destroy is a war crime, it is mere name-calling - really vicious ugly name-calling, and don't pretend you aren't aware of that. If you and anyone else would like prosecute Destroy as a war crime in this forum, feel free. But do not expect anyone who had their Shepard pick that option to simply aquiesce to such an allegation by labelling their own Shepard's actions with such a term.

Modifié par Obadiah, 10 octobre 2012 - 03:37 .

[AlanC9]

drayfish wrote...

You seem to be mistaking 'intent' with 'malice'.  Shepard doesn't want to exterminate a race because he/she hates them; but he/she does need to exterminate a race because it achieves a larger end.  It is the targeting of a race for destruction; it's still genocide, by definition.

WelI, you can use "intent" to mean that people "intend "every forseeable consequence of their actions. But that isn't how the concept is always used. In philosophy the topic's actually kind of messy; look up the "side-effect effect" for some amusement. Utilitarians agree with you about how intent should be used, but they're not very interested in the "is this genocide or not" question in the first place.

As for whether the legal definition of genocide requires the specific intent to exterminate a race, etc., rather than mere knowledge that the result of your actions will exterminate a race, that depends on the statute. Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention would seem to require specific intent, which means Shepard walks.

Though I'm with you on the substance here. I don't see any particular reason why the "genocide" concept should require specific intent -- it's a much more useful concept if it also encompasses cases where extermination happens as a side-effect.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 octobre 2012 - 04:37 .

[drayfish]

AlanC9 wrote...

WelI, you can use "intent" to mean that people "intend "every forseeable consequence of their actions. But that isn't how the concept is always used. In philosophy the topic's actually kind of messy; look up the "side-effect effect" for some amusement. Utilitarians agree with you about how intent should be used, but they're not very interested in the "is this genocide or not" question in the first place.

As for whether the legal definition of genocide requires the specific intent to exterminate a race, etc., rather than mere knowledge that the result of your actions will exterminate a race, that depends on the statute. Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention would seem to require specific intent, which means Shepard walks.

Though I'm with you on the substance here. I don't see any particular reason why the "genocide" concept should require specific intent -- it's a much more useful concept if it also encompasses cases where extermination happens as a side-effect.

Extremely well put, and I totally agree.  Apologies for my earlier, clumsy phrasing, but this is precisely what I had meant.

Obadiah wrote...

Maybe that would have merit if I was the one playing games with the English language.

Genocide is a loaded word, and in the absence of actually making an argument that Destroy is a war crime, it is mere name-calling - really vicious ugly name-calling, and don't pretend you aren't aware of that. If you and anyone else would like prosecute Destroy as a war crime in this forum, feel free. But do not expect anyone who had their Shepard pick that option to simply aquiesce to such an allegation by labelling their own Shepard's actions with such a term.

Sorry to keep banging on about this, but no: Genocide has a specific definition, and this scenario fits it precisely. Again, no one is saying that Shepard hates the Geth and wants them to die, but the action that needs to be performed is Genocide.

You are inferring an ugliness in the concept because it is inherently disgusting. But again, this is on Bioware, and the scenario that they knowingly engineered - not the people who merely want this action to be labelled appropriately.

And just to be clear, because you seem to be hung up on this notion that people who are asking that the actual terminology be applied are judging you personally: my first Shepard picked Destroy. Pre-EC that was what my Shepard came to decide. I felt trapped in a vile no-win scenario (apparently what the writers wanted people to feel), and I blew everything to hell.

It was Genocide. 

It was disgusting, and my Shepard did not want to do it, but pretending that it was anything less would be cowardly, and only cheapens the enormity of what happened.

My Shepard (for the split second she had before she was obliterated) owed the dead more than pathetic semantic games.

Modifié par drayfish, 10 octobre 2012 - 05:14 .

[Han Shot First]

wantedman dan wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

There isn't any spin involved. Refuse is cut and dry.

Your chose to lose the game. Your Shepard delivered a flawless victory to the Reapers, resulting in the destruction of every sapient space faring civilization in the galaxy, including humanity. Refuse is the Epic Fail ending.

Way to ignore that first sentence, sweetheart.

*ModEdit: Nothing to see here*

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 10 octobre 2012 - 11:05 .

[Obadiah]

@drayfish
Genocide is a war crime. Is Destroy a war crime or isn't it? If it is not then Genocide ought not be used to describe it. If you think Destroy is a war crime, then you ought to make that case.

I'll just have to repeat myself, using "Genocide" to not describe a war crime is merely name-calling.

I believe that the Military Necessity of destroying the Reapers justifies the collateral damage, and though it is horrendous, it is not excessive in comparison to the military gain.

Modifié par Obadiah, 10 octobre 2012 - 06:34 .

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

@drayfish
Genocide is a war crime. Is Destroy a war crime or isn't it? If it is not then Genocide ought not be used to describe it. If you think Destroy is a war crime, then you ought to make that case.

I'll just have to repeat myself, using "Genocide" to not describe a war crime is merely name-calling.

I believe that the Military Necessity of destroying the Reapers justifies the collateral damage, and though it is horrendous, it is not excessive in comparison to the military gain.

I have stated repeatedly (indeed somewhat ad nauseum) that yes, it is a war crime.  It is a war crime that is imposed upon your character by the construct of the game should you choose to follow the Destroy path.

They are all war crimes.

Forced Eugenics; Totalitarian mind control; Genocide.

It's a salad of ethical horror.

Refusing to accept the ending for what it is is cowardly.  Again: you can justify it as necessary if you wish (given the fact that we are all morally screwed no matter what we pick, it really does become about weighing up which attrocity is worse, so 'justification' makes a sick kind of sense), but you are playing with semantics in a disturbing way if you try to change the definition of the word 'genocide'.

Han Shot First wrote...

You got to love the hilarity of some hipster-glasses wearing pansy, who by all appearances likely spent his High School years being shoved face first into toilet bowls and showing the school councilor where the bad man touched him, calling anyone 'sweetheart.'

It just doesn't suit you.

If you're going to act like a hard @ss at least remember to not link your facebook page to your profile, where anyone can see that you are a tw@t.

@ Han Shot First:

This kind of behaviour is infantile.  I am ashamed for you.

Modifié par drayfish, 10 octobre 2012 - 07:30 .

[RiouHotaru]

wantedman dan wrote...

That's why, instead of finding someone else or sending Shepard away, the Crucible is deactivated and the Reapers continue their onslaught. Yes, definitely interested in finding a new solution ahead of committing to the cycle again.

If you're able to so easily abandon your principles when the situation suits you, that isn't my problem. Integrity, I surmise, is something sorely lacking.

I absolutely LOVE the argument that somehow the Catalyst has the free will to willingly end the cycle if it wanted to.  Leviathan outright proved the Catalyst is slaved to it's programming.  It.  Cannot.  Stop.  The.  Cycle.  That's WHY Shepard is necessary.  It lacks the ability to alter itself or it's own programming to make the cycle end.  But that doesn't keep it from getting someone else to do it for him.

That's why it has Shepard make the option.  And that's why it seems disappointed/upset when you refuse.

[RiouHotaru]

Also, anyone claiming Synthesis contains ANY element of eugenics needs to re-read the dictionary definition of eugenics. Nowhere does Synthesis come anywhere close to that.

[wantedman dan]

Han Shot First wrote...

*ModEdit: Nothing to see here*

That's the best you have?

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 10 octobre 2012 - 11:06 .

[wantedman dan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

That's why, instead of finding someone else or sending Shepard away, the Crucible is deactivated and the Reapers continue their onslaught. Yes, definitely interested in finding a new solution ahead of committing to the cycle again.

If you're able to so easily abandon your principles when the situation suits you, that isn't my problem. Integrity, I surmise, is something sorely lacking.

I absolutely LOVE the argument that somehow the Catalyst has the free will to willingly end the cycle if it wanted to.  Leviathan outright proved the Catalyst is slaved to it's programming.  It.  Cannot.  Stop.  The.  Cycle.  That's WHY Shepard is necessary.  It lacks the ability to alter itself or it's own programming to make the cycle end.  But that doesn't keep it from getting someone else to do it for him.

That's why it has Shepard make the option.  And that's why it seems disappointed/upset when you refuse.

Ooh, Leviathan. Apparently my assumptions were proven correct: It's nothing but one, big stab at retroactive continuity.

Oh, it didn't match the first time through? That's fine. Go back and rewrite the story to make it fit.

[Maxster_]

wantedman dan wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

That's why, instead of finding someone else or sending Shepard away, the Crucible is deactivated and the Reapers continue their onslaught. Yes, definitely interested in finding a new solution ahead of committing to the cycle again.

If you're able to so easily abandon your principles when the situation suits you, that isn't my problem. Integrity, I surmise, is something sorely lacking.

I absolutely LOVE the argument that somehow the Catalyst has the free will to willingly end the cycle if it wanted to.  Leviathan outright proved the Catalyst is slaved to it's programming.  It.  Cannot.  Stop.  The.  Cycle.  That's WHY Shepard is necessary.  It lacks the ability to alter itself or it's own programming to make the cycle end.  But that doesn't keep it from getting someone else to do it for him.

That's why it has Shepard make the option.  And that's why it seems disappointed/upset when you refuse.

Ooh, Leviathan. Apparently my assumptions were proven correct: It's nothing but one, big stab at retroactive continuity.

Oh, it didn't match the first time through? That's fine. Go back and rewrite the story to make it fit.

Yeah, he could start the cycle, but cannot stop the cycle. Seems legit.
Not even adding that "leviathan" is no more than another pack of retcons to made nonsense that was ME3 less nonsensical. Well, they failed.

[wantedman dan]

Maxster_ wrote...
Yeah, he could start the cycle, but cannot stop the cycle. Seems legit.
Not even adding that "leviathan" is no more than another pack of retcons to made nonsense that was ME3 less nonsensical. Well, they failed.

Further proof that Mass Effect 3 is a head-on-collision-at-full-speed trainwreck.

[Obadiah]

@drayfish
War crimes aren't justifiable by necessity. That is why they are war crimes. Hence the arguments that Destroy is Genocide are pure hyperbole, and that is the semantic game.

[Xilizhra]

Look, not only does synthesis require you impose your will over all sentient life in the galaxy, it also requires you change their species without pernission. THEIR SPECIES! Advocating the use of space magic to change the genetic composition of all life is almost the very definition of eugenics. Moreover, synthesis could easily be considered worse in that it comes with an additional (very nasty) little caveat: Synthesis actually requires both genetic and cognitive modification. And all this without the permission of each and every recipient. Social Darwinism at the touch of a button!

Several things:
1. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with this. 2. It's not changing peoples' species, only modifying them. 3. Synthetics get cognitive upgrades, but there's no proof of organics directly doing so, only gaining the ability to interface with technology better. 4. Eugenics itself involves breeding controls and suchlike in order to get rid of weak traits; this itself is more like a single massive case of gene therapy.

Ooh, Leviathan. Apparently my assumptions were proven correct: It's nothing but one, big stab at retroactive continuity.

Oh, it didn't match the first time through? That's fine. Go back and rewrite the story to make it fit.

So people shouldn't try to fix issues in the story?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 10 octobre 2012 - 01:43 .