422 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't have to be authoritarian. It's entirely possible for me to only intervene in scenarios of dire need, and let the Council govern things otherwise. It'll probably do better without the Reapers hanging over everyone's head in any case.

You are the ultimate governing force of the galaxy; the sovereign political (violent) power in the Milky Way. None are able to match the might of the Reaper fleet, according to your own argumentation. Simply because you do not concern yourself with the mundane governance that the council must oversee does not remove you from the fact that you are such an ultimate, sovereign political power.

Yeah, this comes back to the concept of the "state of emergency" whereby governments are authorized to forego laws and rights in order to protect the country. You see many examples in history where a country with such a provision eventually comes to accept "the state of emergency" as the norm.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The precedent isn't that synthetics are 2nd rate...If anything it's promoting the ruthless Calculus of war that Garrus talked about early on. Sacrifice 10 billion lives to save 10 trillion.

So we are all essentialized into beings subjected to ruthless logical calculations regardless of emotional appeal? What good are emotions, in that case? Should we be, then, apathetic to the needs of the few overall?

Ofcourse not...

If Control/Synthesis are non-options then the minority is as good as dead anyway. Yes I am only considering the numbers here because again, I'm not racist. I think all life holds the same value in this galaxy. That's why to me 10 trillion lives is worth more than 10 billion. That doesn't mean I'm apathetic to those 10 billion lives. I'm going to take responsibility...In fact the game basically railroads you into caring about EDI's death considering the flashbacks as you are picking destroy.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 16 octobre 2012 - 05:12 .

[wantedman dan]

Xilizhra wrote...

I accept that it's not a perfect solution, and that some will be unhappy with this. But it's the best option available to me, that I can see. I personally don't think that this'll be entirely different from the Council's own fleet being able to crush anyone who turned against the Council actively, except for the possibility of the Terminus Systems being more intimidated, which may not be all that bad.

One thereby must question, in my opinion, if it is at all just to be forced into picking the "least bad" option in a work of pure fantasy. 

[Xilizhra]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I accept that it's not a perfect solution, and that some will be unhappy with this. But it's the best option available to me, that I can see. I personally don't think that this'll be entirely different from the Council's own fleet being able to crush anyone who turned against the Council actively, except for the possibility of the Terminus Systems being more intimidated, which may not be all that bad.

One thereby must question, in my opinion, if it is at all just to be forced into picking the "least bad" option in a work of pure fantasy. 

Well, I wouldn't have written the game this way if it was up to me. I just would rather make the best of what I have and feel somewhat good about it than continue to feel horrible.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I accept that it's not a perfect solution, and that some will be unhappy with this. But it's the best option available to me, that I can see. I personally don't think that this'll be entirely different from the Council's own fleet being able to crush anyone who turned against the Council actively, except for the possibility of the Terminus Systems being more intimidated, which may not be all that bad.

One thereby must question, in my opinion, if it is at all just to be forced into picking the "least bad" option in a work of pure fantasy. 

It's not the first decision in the series that sparked moral conflict. However, it is the first to have the consequences happen almost immediately after making it.

[KotorEffect3]

Yate wrote...

I'd like to see the conversation between Refuse!Shepard and Hackett.

Destroy > Refusal in every way. Anyone who chooses Refusal is not role playing, they're trying to be hipster.

lol so true, I guess refusers think they are too cool and too smart to save the galaxy.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The precedent isn't that synthetics are 2nd rate...If anything it's promoting the ruthless Calculus of war that Garrus talked about early on. Sacrifice 10 billion lives to save 10 trillion.

So we are all essentialized into beings subjected to ruthless logical calculations regardless of emotional appeal? What good are emotions, in that case? Should we be, then, apathetic to the needs of the few overall?

Ofcourse not...

If Control/Synthesis are non-options then the minority is as good as dead anyway. Yes I am only considering the numbers here because again, I'm not racist. I think all life holds the same value in this galaxy. That's why to me 10 trillion lives is worth more than 10 billion. That doesn't mean I'm apathetic to those 10 billion lives. I'm going to take responsibility...In fact the game basically railroads you into caring about EDI's death considering the flashbacks as you are picking destroy.

You, yourself, just quoted Garrus in saying that it's a ruthless calculus. Acknowledging the calculus is thereby acknowledging the ruthless logical calculations necessary to make such a decision. A pathetic--not in the modern sense of the word, but traditional--approach would consider what you're advocating.

Can you truly be both in the sense that you're hoping? The answer is no. Either all life is logically worth the exact same on a utilitarian calculus, or it isn't, and different weight is applied to different individuals.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I accept that it's not a perfect solution, and that some will be unhappy with this. But it's the best option available to me, that I can see. I personally don't think that this'll be entirely different from the Council's own fleet being able to crush anyone who turned against the Council actively, except for the possibility of the Terminus Systems being more intimidated, which may not be all that bad.

One thereby must question, in my opinion, if it is at all just to be forced into picking the "least bad" option in a work of pure fantasy. 

It's not the first decision in the series that sparked moral conflict. However, it is the first to have the consequences happen almost immediately after making it.

Yes, but the scale through which this decision is seen through is unprecedented.

[wantedman dan]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Yate wrote...

I'd like to see the conversation between Refuse!Shepard and Hackett.

Destroy > Refusal in every way. Anyone who chooses Refusal is not role playing, they're trying to be hipster.

lol so true, I guess refusers think they are too cool and too smart to save the galaxy.

Well, if it isn't Brigadier Buttercup here to save the day with his daily drug-addled Rage Against the Refusal.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The precedent isn't that synthetics are 2nd rate...If anything it's promoting the ruthless Calculus of war that Garrus talked about early on. Sacrifice 10 billion lives to save 10 trillion.

So we are all essentialized into beings subjected to ruthless logical calculations regardless of emotional appeal? What good are emotions, in that case? Should we be, then, apathetic to the needs of the few overall?

Ofcourse not...

If Control/Synthesis are non-options then the minority is as good as dead anyway. Yes I am only considering the numbers here because again, I'm not racist. I think all life holds the same value in this galaxy. That's why to me 10 trillion lives is worth more than 10 billion. That doesn't mean I'm apathetic to those 10 billion lives. I'm going to take responsibility...In fact the game basically railroads you into caring about EDI's death considering the flashbacks as you are picking destroy.

You, yourself, just quoted Garrus in saying that it's a ruthless calculus. Acknowledging the calculus is thereby acknowledging the ruthless logical calculations necessary to make such a decision. A pathetic--not in the modern sense of the word, but traditional--approach would consider what you're advocating.

Can you truly be both in the sense that you're hoping? The answer is no. Either all life is logically worth the exact same on a utilitarian calculus, or it isn't, and different weight is applied to different individuals.

So it's better to judge that some life is worth more than others? 

The calculations are necessary but that doesn't somehow negate the fact that you CAN understand the scope of your decision. It's not like I was thinking "LOL NUMBERS" while picking destroy.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

So it's better to judge that some life is worth more than others? 

The calculations are necessary but that doesn't somehow negate the fact that you CAN understand the scope of your decision. It's not like I was thinking "LOL NUMBERS" while picking destroy.

It's better for an individual to judge on an individual basis what is good for the individual.

I must question you on that, however, because at the core of your decision, weighing the life of the synthetics versus that of the galaxy, was it not predicated on the basis of making the best decision for the greatest amount of people? At the very core of your decision-making process, that seems to be the case.

Modifié par wantedman dan, 16 octobre 2012 - 05:26 .

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I accept that it's not a perfect solution, and that some will be unhappy with this. But it's the best option available to me, that I can see. I personally don't think that this'll be entirely different from the Council's own fleet being able to crush anyone who turned against the Council actively, except for the possibility of the Terminus Systems being more intimidated, which may not be all that bad.

One thereby must question, in my opinion, if it is at all just to be forced into picking the "least bad" option in a work of pure fantasy. 

It's not the first decision in the series that sparked moral conflict. However, it is the first to have the consequences happen almost immediately after making it.

Yes, but the scale through which this decision is seen through is unprecedented.

Is it really? Curing/Sabotaging the Genophage decision pretty much decides the fate of the Krogan race. Saving the Rachni Queen could have caused massive galactic war with a lot of bloodshed. Killing the Queen is well...Genocide. Kill the millions of Geth heretics or effectively brainwash them (no real Paragon choice there!)?

There is also the decision to wipe out an entire system of Batarians (300K+) to SLOW the Reapers down.

[wantedman dan]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Is it really? Curing/Sabotaging the Genophage decision pretty much decides the fate of the Krogan race. Saving the Rachni Queen could have caused massive galactic war with a lot of bloodshed. Killing the Queen is well...Genocide. Kill the millions of Geth heretics or effectively brainwash them (no real Paragon choice there!)?

There is also the decision to wipe out an entire system of Batarians (300K+) to SLOW the Reapers down.

Using your own logic, weigh those individual problems versus that of the trillions of lives, conservatively estimated, affected by your decision at the Crucible chambers.

[wantedman dan]

Alright, I'm up waaaaaaaay too late. When I start making a bunch of typos--luckily, I proofread as I go--it's time for bed.

Good night.

[MegaSovereign]

wantedman dan wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

So it's better to judge that some life is worth more than others? 

The calculations are necessary but that doesn't somehow negate the fact that you CAN understand the scope of your decision. It's not like I was thinking "LOL NUMBERS" while picking destroy.

It's better for an individual to judge on an individual basis what is good for the individual.

I must question you on that, however, because at the core of your decision, weighing the life of the synthetics versus that of the galaxy, was it not predicated on the basis of making the best decision for the greatest amount of people? At the very core of your decision-making process, that seems to be the case.

@ bolded part...I don't exactly follow? Destroy still seems to fit that honestly. It's the only choice that doesn't gaurantee my Shepard's death. Not saying that's what drove me to make that decision.

It's not a black and white decision-making process. It's a combination of mathematical and philosphical reasoning that got me to make my choice. And IMO that is the most effective way to make that type of decision.

[CronoDragoon]

wantedman dan wrote...

Can you truly be both in the sense that you're hoping? The answer is no. Either all life is logically worth the exact same on a utilitarian calculus, or it isn't, and different weight is applied to different individuals.

There's a miscommunication between you two on the use of the word apathetic. Wanted is using it to mean "do you disregard the few to favor the many when acting" whereas Mega is using it to mean "feeling indifferent about the act that you choose."

I think Mega is saying that while he is actively apathetic about the needs of the few when compared to the many in this particular decision, he is not emotionally or morally - with morality being represented by guilt.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 16 octobre 2012 - 05:48 .

[The Twilight God]

wantedman dan wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

You come off as a guy who knows he's wrong, but is too stubborn to admit it.

Only to a person who doesn't realize he's been toyed with over the past two days. Think what you will; what I said, however, still stands. 

I think we've both been toying (EEP!), but the toying is over. Now I'm back to asking you a question.

That being the case, you are avoiding said question. Presumably, because you understand that you are wrong, but are to stubborn to admit when you're wrong.

[robertthebard]

wantedman dan wrote...

Can you truly be both in the sense that you're hoping? The answer is no. Either all life is logically worth the exact same on a utilitarian calculus, or it isn't, and different weight is applied to different individuals.

All life has the exact same value, unfortunately, I can't save them all.  I can, however, save as many as I possibly can by destroying the Reapers, thus allowing the survivors to rebuild.  In my mind, that is preferrable to, after seeing the state of the galaxy map on my way to Sol for Priority Earth, allowing everyone to die because I might feel uncomfortable about having to kill some of them myself to save them.  My question for you is how did you ever get past Virmire in ME 1?  Rationalizing scale?  In my first Destroy ending, I killed EDI, since the Geth were destroyed by the Quarians at Rannoch. 

CronoDragoon wrote...
There's a miscommunication between you two on the use of the word apathetic. Wanted is using it to mean "do you disregard the few to favor the many when acting" whereas Mega is using it to mean "feeling indifferent about the act that you choose."

I think Mega is saying that while he is actively apathetic about the needs of the few when compared to the many in this particular decision, he is not emotionally or morally - with morality being represented by guilt.

It's really not a miscommunication, some people honestly believe it's better to let everyone die than to kill some of them themselves in order to save the rest.

Modifié par robertthebard, 16 octobre 2012 - 07:00 .

[Davik Kang]

Ah, wantedman dan, dan, dan.

You seem to want to contribute to this discussion but have still refused to answer a basic question that goes to the core of your point.  In case you forgot, here it is:

Davik Kang wrote...
What do you think they'd have you do, the people of the galaxy?  Some would beg you to choose Destroy, others plead with you to go with Control, more still would pray that you chose Synthesis.  

But who would go "oh yeah man, it's hard on you, pick Refuse.  We all die but the important thing is, your moral integrity is intact."?

You can continue to plead "it's my interpretation".  But consider Billy:

Billy: I thought the squad members getting back onto the Normandy during Priority:Earth was actually pretty well-thought out and made sense with regards to the overall plot.

Jimmy: Really?  Why?

Billy:  It's my interpretation.

Jimmy:  Yeah but why do you think that?

Billy:  My interpretation LOLZ

It's hard to respect his interpretation when there is no substance to it.  Therefore, no discussion.


Let me help you with the original question.  I don't think the answer is "no-one".  Plenty of people might want Shep to Refuse and let everyone die.  These include subsets of:

- People massively depressed to the point of resentful bitterness at the world

- Insane religious zealots

- University professors

- Internet trolls

- People who like to "stick it to the man" without having the slightest clue what that actually means

But do they include wantedman dan?  I don't think so.

Take a quick glance around you dan.  In real life.  Take note of the other people in the room.  Now imagine something.  Imagine that someone rushes through the door holding a laptop with a live stream.  That stream is a global emergency broadcast.  It shows a meteor hurtling toward the Earth.  An assmebled team of experts explains that this meteor is so big it will obliterate the planet.  Now, a newsflash: somehow, someone is on the meteor and has the means to detonate a bomb to blow it up.  The experts decide that the meteor will break apart, but conclude that one of Earth's continents will be flattened.  They cannot predict which one because it depends on when the guy sets off the bomb.

What do you think, dan?  Should he set off the bomb?

Modifié par Davik Kang, 16 octobre 2012 - 12:17 .

[DrGunjah]

That's a poor comparison, Davik.
It's more like there are two guys on the meteor. A hero from your world and another. the other telling your hero that he makes meteors crashing into worlds to save worlds from getting extinct by meteor-crashes. Then he tells the hero "when you push this button here, the meteor gets destroyed but the explosion will kill you and nation xyz". Would you believe him actually?

[Yate]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

At least with Refusal, you're not actually sentencing anyone to death.  Metagame-wise, sure, but in-game, you could full well believe that it would work.

I sentenced the Quarians to death when I helped the geth.

I sentenced some Krogan to death when I rescued the Rachni Queen.

I sentenced Ashley to death when I chose to save Kaidan.

I sentenced my entire squad to death simply by attacking the Collectors.

But they still trusted me to get the job done.

Mass Effect is about making the hard decisions, about how far you are willing to go to get the job done.

The endings reflect this.

Refusal is a copout. Shepard can make all the speeches he wants, doesn`t change the fact that millions of lives depend on him firing the Crucible.

No Shepard would choose Refusal, not after all the sacrifices made, all the lives pledged to the cause.

[wantedman dan]

Davik Kang wrote...

Ah, wantedman dan, dan, dan.

I'm just going to write you off as being unable to discern when someone isn't being serious.

[Davik Kang]

wantedman dan wrote...
I'm just going to write you off as being unable to discern when someone isn't being serious.
[Subtext: Not here for any actual discussion; has no desire to back up even his own interpretation.

GGs

[ForThessia]

silentassassin264 wrote...

So you are spoiled and didn't get what you wanted so you doomed your entire cycle who was counting on you using the Crucible to save them? Okay.

[Davik Kang]

DrGunjah wrote...
That's a poor comparison, Davik.
It's more like there are two guys on the meteor. A hero from your world and another. the other telling your hero that he makes meteors crashing into worlds to save worlds from getting extinct by meteor-crashes. Then he tells the hero "when you push this button here, the meteor gets destroyed but the explosion will kill you and nation xyz". Would you believe him actually?

Look.  I don't really see why you'd want to get involved in this.  But if you want to, I'd say calling the comparison "poor" isn't a great start.

Nonetheless, I'd say the problem with your alternative is that you are insinuating that Hero has another way to stop the meteor.  But the whole premise of the game was that the Crucible was the only thing that could stop the Reapers, and hence why the united species poured massive resources into completing the project, and even made a suicidal run at the Reaper-protected beam on Earth so that someone could get onto the Citadel to activate it.

And if you say, "no there's no other way", then what exactly can you do?  Why does it matter if you believe him or not?