Whichever one would leave me with all weapons fully upgraded and three million credits burning a hole in my pocket...
I think I will pick destroy again...
Modifié par Bill Casey, 14 octobre 2012 - 01:13 .
Positive Reasons to choose Destroy
Débuté par
jtav
, oct. 13 2012 11:41
#51
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 01:11
Bill Casey
-
- Members
- 7 609 messages
I am finishing up my seventh or eighth play-through...
Whichever one would leave me with all weapons fully upgraded and three million credits burning a hole in my pocket...
I think I will pick destroy again...
Whichever one would leave me with all weapons fully upgraded and three million credits burning a hole in my pocket...
I think I will pick destroy again...
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 01:26
jtav
-
- Members
- 13 965 messages
There's nothing immoral, let alone socoipathic, about the ending choices. The death of the geth/EDI is tragic. But if you believe that destroying the Reapers is the only way to end the Reaper threat, then they become justified collateral damage. You aren't targeting them. You're targeting the Reapers, with allied deaths being a foreseeable side effect, but not the goal itself. Basic just war theory.
#53
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 01:30
Taboo
-
- Members
- 20 234 messages
The death of Synthetics is a side effect of using it. It's not a Reaper plot or whatever.
It's a loss that some find acceptable.
But again if the Geth are dead you simply have EDI in the way.
It's a loss that some find acceptable.
But again if the Geth are dead you simply have EDI in the way.
#54
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 01:30
o Ventus
-
- Members
- 17 275 messages
jtav wrote...
There's nothing immoral, let alone socoipathic, about the ending choices. The death of the geth/EDI is tragic. But if you believe that destroying the Reapers is the only way to end the Reaper threat, then they become justified collateral damage. You aren't targeting them. You're targeting the Reapers, with allied deaths being a foreseeable side effect, but not the goal itself. Basic just war theory.
Just War?
Where does anything in the Just War theory make any remote mention of knowingly sacrificing allies to gain a victory? Do you know what Just War actually is? If anything, Just War condemns Shepard's actions because Shepard knows full well that the geth will die.
Modifié par o Ventus, 14 octobre 2012 - 01:31 .
#55
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 01:34
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
I personally care nothing about religious justifications for war tactics, but I don't know if I agree. It's possible to argue this, but it's very much a Renegade argument to make, along the lines of letting the factory workers on Zorya burn to death, but on a grand scale. And I don't take Renegade arguments.jtav wrote...
There's nothing immoral, let alone socoipathic, about the ending choices. The death of the geth/EDI is tragic. But if you believe that destroying the Reapers is the only way to end the Reaper threat, then they become justified collateral damage. You aren't targeting them. You're targeting the Reapers, with allied deaths being a foreseeable side effect, but not the goal itself. Basic just war theory.
#56
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 01:39
teh DRUMPf!!
-
- Members
- 9 142 messages
MegaSovereign wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
MegaSovereign wrote...
BSN should not influence your ending choice.
BSN actually did influence my choice. I chose opposite of what people here approved of.
It's not quite that simple, but something like that.
Wow way to shoot yourself in the foot there.
Now anytime you defend your ending choice your credibility will be a lot lower.
Or maybe people won't care as much I think.
Okay....
Not really sure how what I said shoots myself in the foot.
Like I said, there's more to it.
#57
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 01:42
jtav
-
- Members
- 13 965 messages
Yes, actually, I'm fairly well versed in just war theory (not a theologian though). The relevent point here is the principle of double effect. I can do things that have bad side effects if the benefits of what I was actually intending to do outweigh them and this is the least harmful means available. Ordinarily, bombing civilians is wrong. However, I can bomb the enemy base, knowing civilians will be caught in the blast. Bombing civilians to force surrender would be wrong. In the same way, I can allow the geth to be destroyed as a side effect of stopping Reapers (though I suppose you could argue Control is less harmful)
#60
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 01:45
Xilizhra
-
- Members
- 30 873 messages
I'll argue that both Control and Synthesis are far less harmful than Destroy, and will stick by this.jtav wrote...
Yes, actually, I'm fairly well versed in just war theory (not a theologian though). The relevent point here is the principle of double effect. I can do things that have bad side effects if the benefits of what I was actually intending to do outweigh them and this is the least harmful means available. Ordinarily, bombing civilians is wrong. However, I can bomb the enemy base, knowing civilians will be caught in the blast. Bombing civilians to force surrender would be wrong. In the same way, I can allow the geth to be destroyed as a side effect of stopping Reapers (though I suppose you could argue Control is less harmful)
#61
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 01:45
o Ventus
-
- Members
- 17 275 messages
jtav wrote...
Yes, actually, I'm fairly well versed in just war theory (not a theologian though). The relevent point here is the principle of double effect. I can do things that have bad side effects if the benefits of what I was actually intending to do outweigh them and this is the least harmful means available. Ordinarily, bombing civilians is wrong. However, I can bomb the enemy base, knowing civilians will be caught in the blast. Bombing civilians to force surrender would be wrong. In the same way, I can allow the geth to be destroyed as a side effect of stopping Reapers (though I suppose you could argue Control is less harmful)
For your claim of being well versed, you don't appear to be following the theory in your ideas.
#62
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 01:55
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 784 messages
o Ventus wrote...
Just War?
Where does anything in the Just War theory make any remote mention of knowingly sacrificing allies to gain a victory? Do you know what Just War actually is? If anything, Just War condemns Shepard's actions because Shepard knows full well that the geth will die.
Agreed. Maybe he's muddling up just war theory with double effect?
Edit: guess I called it.
Modifié par AlanC9, 14 octobre 2012 - 01:57 .
#63
Guest_DirtyMouthSally_*
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 02:09
Guest_DirtyMouthSally_*
Guest_DirtyMouthSally_*
-
- Guests
You say that you're a pro ender, which is fine with me btw. However, my opinion as to why you get that answer is a testament to just how bad the overall ending is, including the choices and consequences.jtav wrote...
I’ve noticed a disturbing trend on BSN. Those who choose Destroy frequently make their case by attacking the other endings. If the best you can say about your ending is that it’s “least bad” what kind of case is that?
And so you have. Don't think that I can't pick it apart, though. j/kWhy should I shoot that pipe? As a pro-ender who has chosen all three main endings with one Shep or another, I’ve been nearly completely turned off Destroy by the attitude if its supporters. So, I want to make a positive case for Destroy for my own sake and for those like me.
Seriously, what's lost on a lot of people in the forum here, apparently, is that the choices are suppose to be a moral dilemma. They all have their pros and cons, and you can find fault and virtue with each one.
Now with that said I would like to state that the ME3 ending sucks!
Modifié par DirtyMouthSally, 14 octobre 2012 - 02:21 .
#64
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 02:28
Bill Casey
-
- Members
- 7 609 messages
jtav wrote...
There's nothing immoral, let alone socoipathic, about the ending choices.
lulz
#65
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 02:30
silentassassin264
-
- Members
- 2 493 messages
I guarantee my Shepard will be a tyrant. And it will be beautiful.o Ventus wrote...
The same reason pro-Synths can argue "There will be peace" or Controllers can argue "Shepardlyst is totally benevolent and not a tyrant, yo".
#66
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 02:47
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 414 messages
jtav wrote...
There's nothing immoral, let alone socoipathic, about the ending choices. The death of the geth/EDI is tragic. But if you believe that destroying the Reapers is the only way to end the Reaper threat, then they become justified collateral damage. You aren't targeting them. You're targeting the Reapers, with allied deaths being a foreseeable side effect, but not the goal itself. Basic just war theory.
Actually, I suspect the ending choices were based less on Adam Jensen and more on Jigsaw, but that's just me
Modifié par iakus, 14 octobre 2012 - 02:48 .
#67
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 04:55
futurepixels
-
- Members
- 589 messages
Permanently altering all organic life is absurd...
Everyone who tries to "control" the Reapers are indoctrinated....
Refusing devalues the sacrifice of all the lives lost throughout the cycles......
Destroy is the only option.
Everyone who tries to "control" the Reapers are indoctrinated....
Refusing devalues the sacrifice of all the lives lost throughout the cycles......
Destroy is the only option.
#68
Guest_magnetite_*
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 05:19
Guest_magnetite_*
Guest_magnetite_*
-
- Guests
There's nothing immoral, let alone socoipathic, about the ending choices. The death of the geth/EDI is tragic
That is if you trust the Reaper posing as a ghostly child who died on Earth. Even without that, it's clear that based on how the Starchild words the conversation between him and Shepard. He is not working in your best interest.
So if anyone picked up that vibe from the Starchild, you immediately know that something bad is going to happen if you don't pick the destroy option.
Modifié par magnetite, 14 octobre 2012 - 05:29 .
#69
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 05:20
Steelcan
-
- Members
- 23 292 messages
In regards as to why I pick destroy, there are several reasons
-It leaves organic life to evolve to on its own terms, no reaper influences
-It kills the reapers, no amount of last second attempt to explain why the reapers are our friends is going to spare them
-Starbrat is a reaper and is thus not to be trusted for his opinions
-Starbrat is wrong on all accounts, he is disproven several times but we are supposed to take everything he says as gospel
-EDI's death is completely irrelevant to me, I couldnt care less about her or the geth
-It leaves organic life to evolve to on its own terms, no reaper influences
-It kills the reapers, no amount of last second attempt to explain why the reapers are our friends is going to spare them
-Starbrat is a reaper and is thus not to be trusted for his opinions
-Starbrat is wrong on all accounts, he is disproven several times but we are supposed to take everything he says as gospel
-EDI's death is completely irrelevant to me, I couldnt care less about her or the geth
Modifié par Steelcan, 14 octobre 2012 - 05:39 .
#70
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 05:32
MegaSovereign
-
- Members
- 10 794 messages
HYR 2.0 wrote...
MegaSovereign wrote...
HYR 2.0 wrote...
MegaSovereign wrote...
BSN should not influence your ending choice.
BSN actually did influence my choice. I chose opposite of what people here approved of.
It's not quite that simple, but something like that.
Wow way to shoot yourself in the foot there.
Now anytime you defend your ending choice your credibility will be a lot lower.
Or maybe people won't care as much I think.
Okay....
Not really sure how what I said shoots myself in the foot.
Like I said, there's more to it.
Pretty sure I was a little tipsy when I posted that.
#71
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 06:32
Vicious
-
- Members
- 3 221 messages
Blow em up, and if the star kid is telling the truth and the Geth get zapped, so be it. The question is, WHAT WILL YOU SACRIFICE?
Red: Geth, EDI [maybe] yourself [maybe]
Blue: Your life and humanity
Green: EVERYTHING
All they needed to do was show an image of Saren jumping into the green beam like we saw TIM doing CONTROL and Anderson doing DESTROY. But sadly PS3 players would have no real clue who Saren was. Pity, because it would have made a lot more sense.
Red: Geth, EDI [maybe] yourself [maybe]
Blue: Your life and humanity
Green: EVERYTHING
All they needed to do was show an image of Saren jumping into the green beam like we saw TIM doing CONTROL and Anderson doing DESTROY. But sadly PS3 players would have no real clue who Saren was. Pity, because it would have made a lot more sense.
#72
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 06:37
The Twilight God
-
- Members
- 3 083 messages
1. The demise of the Reapers
2. The demise of the Intelligence (or at least its "hands and feet" are cut off)
3. The end of the Cycle of Extinction
4. The freedom to self-determinate.
5. The continued coexistence of synthetics and organics (if it's still around all it can do is sit back and watch itself be proven wrong... hopefully
)
2. The demise of the Intelligence (or at least its "hands and feet" are cut off)
3. The end of the Cycle of Extinction
4. The freedom to self-determinate.
5. The continued coexistence of synthetics and organics (if it's still around all it can do is sit back and watch itself be proven wrong... hopefully
)
#73
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 06:43
d-boy15
-
- Members
- 1 642 messages
reason for me to choose destroy?
main: I don't like how bioware take all nagative in to destroy just to let players consider
other choice especially their precious synthesis.
minor:
- galaxy choose their future.
- a cost of victory that reasonable.
- no cliche' hero sacrifice.
- Anderson choose this choice.
main: I don't like how bioware take all nagative in to destroy just to let players consider
other choice especially their precious synthesis.
minor:
- galaxy choose their future.
- a cost of victory that reasonable.
- no cliche' hero sacrifice.
- Anderson choose this choice.
Modifié par d-boy15, 14 octobre 2012 - 06:43 .
#74
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 07:44
KotorEffect3
-
- Members
- 9 416 messages
Eterna5 wrote...
You destroy the Reapers. That's about it.
I would say that is a pretty big it. You are ending a billion years of galactic genocide
#75
Posté 14 octobre 2012 - 09:12
Necrotron
-
- Members
- 2 315 messages
First of all, darn lucky it worked. After years and years of all evidence pointing to the Reapers will indoctrinate, trick, and make into servants every living being who ever dealt with them, you get to be the lucky first to ever deal with an honest Reaper.
You get to be a mass murderer for the greater good?
Oh right, good things. Hmm...you serve the greater good, then live the rest of your life with guilt over what you did, but at least you win, I suppose.
I imagine it would feel sort of like dropping the first atomic bomb. You'd win, but you would forever feel ashamed of what you did to achieve it.
You get to be a mass murderer for the greater good?
Oh right, good things. Hmm...you serve the greater good, then live the rest of your life with guilt over what you did, but at least you win, I suppose.
I imagine it would feel sort of like dropping the first atomic bomb. You'd win, but you would forever feel ashamed of what you did to achieve it.
Modifié par Bathaius, 14 octobre 2012 - 09:17 .
