184 réponses à ce sujet

[TreguardD]

The honest answer is that it doesn't matter. You're still no longer human.

No, you're not something greater.

If I was subjected to that, I would probably seek self destruction. My very mortality had been violated.

Momento Mori.

[CosmicGnosis]

Shogun Fish wrote...

I hate to break out the logic here but *picks up baseball bat*

Your entire statement is based on the idea that evolution will stop because everyone will be optimal. On the contrary, the OP's idea is that it will become diverse because instead of counting on random mutations it will count on individuals choosing their own paths.

Basically, these are two possible futures that could be reached. One where life is consumed by technology, the other where it is enhanced and diversified by it. Which one is achieved depends on a few factors.

Your proposed future is based on the way technology is today. It has to be mass produced, iPhones and Xboxes are all the same. Your idea is that with no new genetic material all future enhancements will move towards one single perfect form. You are saying that the inclusion of technology into organic life will cause all life to "upgrade" itself towards a central point. That our biological tendancies would become obsolite. The universe you are suggesting is based on the idea that function will be valued over form, there will be no room for art or aesthetics. 

The OP on the other hand is suggesting that the inclusion of synthetic parts in our genetics as well as the granting of genetic parts to synthetics will do the opposite. That any person can decide to upgrade themself at will, to focus on a personal goal. He thinks that based on different specializations the forms taken by beings would branch out and become diverse. Our biological half would keep our life meaningful while our synthetic half allowed us complete control of our destiny. Aesthetics would still be a concern so visual diversity would be common and vary greatly.

The big difference between your two ideas is whether you think "Upgrades" would be direct steps toward some "Perfect form" or a branching web of different things created by individuals to suit their personal tastes.

I tend to side with the OP.

Namely, the assumption that a half-synthetic half-organic creature would behave only as a synthetic creature doesn't suit me. I like to believe that our biological half would maintain our different goals, our desire for relationships and our ability to feel emotions. I would hope that in our newfound synthetic freedom we wouldn't decide to rewrite those things, but if we did we would end up in the future you suggest.

Yes, I think that's a good summary.

[Davik Kang]

Nice topic, interesting stuff. Apologies for the lack of contribution to the discussion. This is little more than a troll post. But with lack of a universal 'Like' feature on this forum (w/o being someone's forum friend) I'll just support it this way instead. GGs

[CosmicGnosis]

TreguardD wrote...


The honest answer is that it doesn't matter. You're still no longer human.

No, you're not something greater.

If I was subjected to that, I would probably seek self destruction. My very mortality had been violated.

Momento Mori.

You're still human. That doesn't change unless you want to change it.

[AdmiralCheez]

Shogun Fish wrote...

I hate to break out the logic here but *picks up baseball bat*

HEY MAN UNLESS YOU ARE TYPING WITH THAT BAT YOU PUT IT DOWN RIGHT NOW

Your entire statement is based on the idea that evolution will stop because everyone will be optimal. On the contrary, the OP's idea is that it will become diverse because instead of counting on random mutations it will count on individuals choosing their own paths.

But DO they get to choose seperate paths?  To me, it seems that everyone is working together under one unified goal.  In addition, the POINT of Synthesis was to promote unity and an end to conflict.  It is, in its nature, a homogenous population.

Basically, these are two possible futures that could be reached. One where life is consumed by technology, the other where it is enhanced and diversified by it. Which one is achieved depends on a few factors.

Technology and biology are now the same thing, thus everyone is already consumed.  Enhanced?  Maybe.  Diversified?  No (see above)

Your proposed future is based on the way technology is today. It has to be mass produced, iPhones and Xboxes are all the same. Your idea is that with no new genetic material all future enhancements will move towards one single perfect form. You are saying that the inclusion of technology into organic life will cause all life to "upgrade" itself towards a central point. That our biological tendancies would become obsolite. The universe you are suggesting is based on the idea that function will be valued over form, there will be no room for art or aesthetics.

That is precisely what I'm saying.  And I'm not the only one who says it.

The OP on the other hand is suggesting that the inclusion of synthetic parts in our genetics as well as the granting of genetic parts to synthetics will do the opposite. That any person can decide to upgrade themself at will, to focus on a personal goal. He thinks that based on different specializations the forms taken by beings would branch out and become diverse. Our biological half would keep our life meaningful while our synthetic half allowed us complete control of our destiny. Aesthetics would still be a concern so visual diversity would be common and vary greatly.

The big difference between your two ideas is whether you think "Upgrades" would be direct steps toward some "Perfect form" or a branching web of different things created by individuals to suit their personal tastes.

There WILL be no "personal tastes," since differing opinions ultimately result in conflict.  There will be no diversity, because that will disrupt unity.

I tend to side with the OP.

Namely, the assumption that a half-synthetic half-organic creature would behave only as a synthetic creature doesn't suit me. I like to believe that our biological half would maintain our different goals, our desire for relationships and our ability to feel emotions. I would hope that in our newfound synthetic freedom we wouldn't decide to rewrite those things, but if we did we would end up in the future you suggest.

I'm not arguing that a cyborg will act more like a robot than a human; I'm arguing that in Synthesis the galaxy ultimately becomes one being.

Tho' your interpretation is cool.  I'm not going to take away other people's happy endings--this is just why Synthesis isn't my happy ending.

[daaaav]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

NOTE: I'm currently trying to decide on a canon ending for myself. I have considered the pros and cons of every choice, but I still haven't committed myself to one. In recent times, I have argued for Destroy, although I have also argued for Synthesis in the past. In this thread, I'm arguing for Synthesis because I think people often don't recognize the merits of this choice. I assume literal interpretations of the endings, so I don't consider Synthesis to be a deception.

Just like everybody else, I hate that Synthesis affects every being in the galaxy. Such an act is indeed a violation of the self-determination of all beings because the decision is made for them.

However, if you take the EC literally, then you have to accept that Synthesis ultimately bestows more self-determination upon sapient beings than most have ever had. A post-Synthesis galaxy allows all beings with enough knowledge and ambition to shape themselves in any way that they wish. Thus, it's unlikely that pre-spaceflight civilizations will benefit from Synthesis until they reach a certain level of technological advancement. This ensures that they will progress at a steady rate.

A literal interpretation of Synthesis suggests that sapient beings are given more power than they lose. Yes, they have no say in the initial decision, but they are forcibly given the ability to forge their own destinies. No longer will they be bound to natural limits on their physical and mental development. It's far more likely that Synthesis will promote genetic and ideological diversity than widespread homogenization.

Yes, it's creepy, but it's supposed to be. It's a revolution, a leap into the unknown. The old order produced cosmic tyrants like the Leviathans and the Reapers. What the new order will produce is completely unknown, but it's likely that individual beings will have a greater command of their personal destinies. A galactic dictatorship will be harder to maintain in a Synthesized galaxy. Again, this assumes a literal interpretation of the EC.

It's not that Nature is bad, but that it's neutral. Nature just is, and has no morality. As sapient and sentient beings, however, we assign our own meaning to Nature, and exploit it for ourselves. And in the most technical sense, we are the universe. We are the universe's consciousness. The universe experiences its existence through beings like us. Synthesis simply enhances our ability to perceive ourselves on a larger cosmic scale. Thus, one gains a greater understanding of one's place in the cosmos.

Synthesis also acknowledges that your physical make-up doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter if you are made of organic parts or synthetic parts. What's important is who you are. The personhood of synthetics is affirmed with this choice, despite some possible narrative inconsistencies. Still, I find it difficult to argue for the legitimacy of synthetic life when I choose to be the cause of their extinction and associate myself with people who confidently argue that synthetics were never really alive. I suppose, however, that if I can validate a thematic paradox for Synthesis, others can validate a thematic paradox for Destroy.

It seems to me that Synthesis is more of a celebration of self-determination than a violation of it. It's a strange paradox, but I think a reasonable mixture of literal interpretation and headcanon can make Synthesis a more appealing choice.

As far as I'm concerned, arguing for the merits of synthesis is like arguing for the existance of god. Lot's of vague assertions without any means whatsoever of backing them up with evidence. If this kind of thing floats your boat, fantastic! However, there is nothing in either the real world or the narrative that would make me accept synthesis.

For me, it really boils down to three things. 

- Humanity can and should improve itself without the intervention of space magic.

- The "personhood" of synthetics was already introduced, quarrelled over and resolved earlier in the narrative.

- The differences between two sets of folk who can ALREADY get along should be celebrated, not removed. Not being able to empathise with another entity is our failing, not the failing of the nature of the universe...

[CosmicGnosis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Shogun Fish wrote...

I hate to break out the logic here but *picks up baseball bat*

HEY MAN UNLESS YOU ARE TYPING WITH THAT BAT YOU PUT IT DOWN RIGHT NOW

Your entire statement is based on the idea that evolution will stop because everyone will be optimal. On the contrary, the OP's idea is that it will become diverse because instead of counting on random mutations it will count on individuals choosing their own paths.

But DO they get to choose seperate paths?  To me, it seems that everyone is working together under one unified goal.  In addition, the POINT of Synthesis was to promote unity and an end to conflict.  It is, in its nature, a homogenous population.

Basically, these are two possible futures that could be reached. One where life is consumed by technology, the other where it is enhanced and diversified by it. Which one is achieved depends on a few factors.

Technology and biology are now the same thing, thus everyone is already consumed.  Enhanced?  Maybe.  Diversified?  No (see above)

Your proposed future is based on the way technology is today. It has to be mass produced, iPhones and Xboxes are all the same. Your idea is that with no new genetic material all future enhancements will move towards one single perfect form. You are saying that the inclusion of technology into organic life will cause all life to "upgrade" itself towards a central point. That our biological tendancies would become obsolite. The universe you are suggesting is based on the idea that function will be valued over form, there will be no room for art or aesthetics.

That is precisely what I'm saying.  And I'm not the only one who says it.

The OP on the other hand is suggesting that the inclusion of synthetic parts in our genetics as well as the granting of genetic parts to synthetics will do the opposite. That any person can decide to upgrade themself at will, to focus on a personal goal. He thinks that based on different specializations the forms taken by beings would branch out and become diverse. Our biological half would keep our life meaningful while our synthetic half allowed us complete control of our destiny. Aesthetics would still be a concern so visual diversity would be common and vary greatly.

The big difference between your two ideas is whether you think "Upgrades" would be direct steps toward some "Perfect form" or a branching web of different things created by individuals to suit their personal tastes.

There WILL be no "personal tastes," since differing opinions ultimately result in conflict.  There will be no diversity, because that will disrupt unity.

I tend to side with the OP.

Namely, the assumption that a half-synthetic half-organic creature would behave only as a synthetic creature doesn't suit me. I like to believe that our biological half would maintain our different goals, our desire for relationships and our ability to feel emotions. I would hope that in our newfound synthetic freedom we wouldn't decide to rewrite those things, but if we did we would end up in the future you suggest.

I'm not arguing that a cyborg will act more like a robot than a human; I'm arguing that in Synthesis the galaxy ultimately becomes one being.

Tho' your interpretation is cool.  I'm not going to take away other people's happy endings--this is just why Synthesis isn't my happy ending.

See, this is what's wrong with the way that people approach the endings. People choose their ending, and then assume the worst of all the others. I could easily propose a very bad post-Destroy future, just like you can propose a very bad post-Synthesis future. I can argue that Destroy is just a gigantic naturalistic fallacy. Basically, Nature=Good.

But I can also propose a glorious post-Destroy future. I'm totally willing to accept it. Yet, most people refuse to consider the possibility that Synthesis is not pure evil. I'm proposing that Synthesis simply empowers the individual more than any other choice. Destroy denies synthetics the right to life (at least initially), and Control maintains the "scary Reaper regime".

By the way, AdmiralCheez, I see why people in this forum like you so much. You do seem to have a good sense of humor.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 18 octobre 2012 - 12:27 .

[AdmiralCheez]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

See, this is what's wrong with the way that people approach the endings. People choose their ending, and then assume the worst of all the others. I could easily propose a very bad post-Destroy future, just like you can propose a very bad post-Synthesis future. I can argue that Destroy is just a gigantic naturalistic fallacy. Basically, Nature=Good.

But I can also propose a glorious post-Destroy future. I'm totally willing to accept it. Yet, most people refuse to consider the possibility that Synthesis is not pure evil. I'm proposing that Synthesis simply empowers the individual more than any other choice. Destroy denies synthetics the right to life (at least initially), and Control maintains the "scary Reaper regime".

Oh yeah.  They can all be interpreted as good OR bad.

Like, I can see Shepardlyst becoming a benevolent protector and caretaker in the paragon Control ending, and I can see how things might be better that way.  And I can see how being truly united and genuinely understanding each other could lead to a true golden age.  Both have the potential to end pointless conflict and destruction, and as someone who genuinely loves the Mass Effect universe, I can see why other players would want those things.  But at the same time, I'm not comfortable with letting the Reapers run things, even if their core programming is based on my personality, and I find it hard to believe that a magical green beam that alters the very essence of every sapient being will suddenly make everything all better.

Destruction, meanwhile, leaves the galaxy in chaotic disarray.  The Relays are badly damaged, and the infrastructure's in shambles.  Doubtless, there are thousands--perhaps millions--that are too isolated to get the help they need, and they will ultimately perish.  Meanwhile, there's nothing to stop each of the factions from fighting each other again.  To top it all off, synthetics (canonically, but I fantasize otherwise) are wiped out completely and unfairly.

But only in the Destruction ending are the survivors undoubtedly and completely free.  For the first time, they can truly determine their own futures, without the threat or subtle manipulation of the Reapers.  It's NOT a perfect galaxy, and for me that's part of the appeal; paradise is not something I believe in.  To me, a post-Destruction galaxy feels the most real, and it preserves Mass Effect's themes (hope, working together despite differences, free will, overcoming struggle) better than the other two options.

Basically, a post-Destruction galaxy is closest to the kind of ending I'd write myself (although there'd be less robocide I MEAN GEEZ BIOWARE WAY TO MAKE ME FEEL LIKE A JERK).

By the way, AdmiralCheez, I see why people like you in this forum. You do seem to have a good sense of humor.

Beeyitch, I'm fabulous.

[Xilizhra]

But only in the Destruction ending are the survivors undoubtedly and completely free. For the first time, they can truly determine their own futures, without the threat or subtle manipulation of the Reapers. It's NOT a perfect galaxy, and for me that's part of the appeal; paradise is not something I believe in. To me, a post-Destruction galaxy feels the most real, and it preserves Mass Effect's themes (hope, working together despite differences, free will, overcoming struggle) better than the other two options.

But it doesn't. Destroy is based wholly on a Renegade perversion of such values, believing they can only be achieved by mass destruction, and also that some beings (the Reapers) are simply incapable of integrating into the galaxy by their very nature. It's a denial of diversity by the exclusion of just two groups, but no less of a denial by that.

[AdmiralCheez]

Xilizhra wrote...

But it doesn't. Destroy is based wholly on a Renegade perversion of such values, believing they can only be achieved by mass destruction, and also that some beings (the Reapers) are simply incapable of integrating into the galaxy by their very nature. It's a denial of diversity by the exclusion of just two groups, but no less of a denial by that.

Nah bro, just the Reapers.  You must have missed the sheer amount of times I fussed over how it was totally lame that EDI and the geth had to go down with them.  In fact, I did so in the very post you quoted.

It's not a matter of the Reapers safely "integrating into the galaxy," by the way.  See, in Control, the Reapers rule; the Catalyst kills you and copies your memories/personality/ideals.  In Synthesis, we actually fuse with the Reapers, and thus everyone sacrifices the core of their being in the name of butterflies and rainbows.

Look, the whole point of me choosing Destruction was because we don't need the Reapers to impose peace and unity upon us, because we made peace and came together on our own.

(srsly tho not gonna deny i'm a reaper bigot.  i hate those reapers, man.  they keep taking our jobs and teaching our kids to do drugs and have premarital buttsex.  i hear they don't even believe in jesus.)

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 18 octobre 2012 - 01:10 .

[Xilizhra]

It's not a matter of the Reapers safely "integrating into the galaxy," by the way. See, in Control, the Reapers rule; the Catalyst kills you and copies your memories/personality/ideals. In Synthesis, we actually fuse with the Reapers, and thus everyone sacrifices the core of their being in the name of butterflies and rainbows.

The first case is overstated and the second one is completely wrong; individuality and diversity are not lost, all that happens is an improved ability to integrate with technology. As for the first one, the Reapers are just there; they don't have to rule, and I desire to release them when I can, so that they can eventually integrate with the rest of the galaxy.

Look, the whole point of me choosing Destruction was because we don't need the Reapers to impose peace and unity upon us, because we made peace and came together on our own.

Temporarily. To win one war.

[Demon560]

Xilizhra wrote...

But only in the Destruction ending are the survivors undoubtedly and completely free. For the first time, they can truly determine their own futures, without the threat or subtle manipulation of the Reapers. It's NOT a perfect galaxy, and for me that's part of the appeal; paradise is not something I believe in. To me, a post-Destruction galaxy feels the most real, and it preserves Mass Effect's themes (hope, working together despite differences, free will, overcoming struggle) better than the other two options.

But it doesn't. Destroy is based wholly on a Renegade perversion of such values, believing they can only be achieved by mass destruction, and also that some beings (the Reapers) are simply incapable of integrating into the galaxy by their very nature. It's a denial of diversity by the exclusion of just two groups, but no less of a denial by that.

So God like machines that have always harvested and controlled beings they viewed as lesser to themselves and have only done this in all of their existance can change after doing nothing but the same thing, you'll have to forgive me for my doubt, but harvesting, destruction, and rebirth is the way of the Reapers, the other choice are no better, Control you destroy what or who they were for your own use, Synthesis- if it doesn't get rid of who they are now, then will lead to the reapers being the same as always or still under the Catalyst's control and change with it, so yeah you destroy the reapers in all endings in one way or another, just one requires you to kill an ally to make sure they are never a problem ever again.

[Xilizhra]

Demon560 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

But only in the Destruction ending are the survivors undoubtedly and completely free. For the first time, they can truly determine their own futures, without the threat or subtle manipulation of the Reapers. It's NOT a perfect galaxy, and for me that's part of the appeal; paradise is not something I believe in. To me, a post-Destruction galaxy feels the most real, and it preserves Mass Effect's themes (hope, working together despite differences, free will, overcoming struggle) better than the other two options.

But it doesn't. Destroy is based wholly on a Renegade perversion of such values, believing they can only be achieved by mass destruction, and also that some beings (the Reapers) are simply incapable of integrating into the galaxy by their very nature. It's a denial of diversity by the exclusion of just two groups, but no less of a denial by that.

So God like machines that have always harvested and controlled beings they viewed as lesser to themselves and have only done this in all of their existance can change after doing nothing but the same thing, you'll have to forgive me for my doubt, but harvesting, destruction, and rebirth is the way of the Reapers, the other choice are no better, Control you destroy what or who they were for your own use, Synthesis- if it doesn't get rid of who they are now, then will lead to the reapers being the same as always or still under the Catalyst's control and change with it, so yeah you destroy the reapers in all endings in one way or another, just one requires you to kill an ally to make sure they are never a problem ever again.

Under my control, they never will be a problem ever again.

[CosmicGnosis]

The Reapers never had self-determination.

Throughout their entire existence they have been controlled by the Catalyst.

Destroy kills them. Is that justice?

Control continues their enslavement. Is that justice?

Synthesis frees the Reapers, the avatars of ancient civilizations. Synthesis grants the Reapers the self-determination that they have always lacked. They benefit from this choice in the same way that everyone else does. The Reapers were never the bad guys. The Catalyst was the villain, and yet, it wasn't a traditional villain. It was simply an AI that could not relate to other beings.

[RiptideX1090]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 It's basically Destroy without the loss of tech everywhere, really. Destroy sets you back and stops the Reapers, Synthesis moves you forward and stops them.

Quite simple, really.

*edit* - and good post, OP.

Except it completely violates everyone on the biological level, the Reapers are alive and plugged into everyone, as are the husks, and it compeletely goes against what Mordin was saying in the second game.

"Suspect you won't find any art in Collector base. Collectors culturally dead, worse than the geth. Technology overriding biology, not enhancing it. Disrupts socio-technological balance. Can't carry load? Invent wheel. Can't catch food? Invent spear. Limitations. No limitations, no advancement, no advancment, culture stagnates."

Not to mention the brainwashing, which you get a very good view of in EDI's monologue. She goes from saying her 'humanity' is worth fighting to the death for, that she will gladly give her lfie for Jeff and for the crew. She doesn't want to think of self-preservation, that's what the Reapers do, and she despises it. In Synthesis, EDI is going on about Immortality and how everyone is alive, going against her previous character development. It's not EDI speaking there, it's a Reaper.

You didn't save anything in Synthesis. Maybe you preserved it, but in the same way the Reapers have been 'preserving' things for the entirety of their existance. By fusing machines and organics together against their will.

[AdmiralCheez]

Xilizhra wrote...

The first case is overstated and the second one is completely wrong; individuality and diversity are not lost, all that happens is an improved ability to integrate with technology. As for the first one, the Reapers are just there; they don't have to rule, and I desire to release them when I can, so that they can eventually integrate with the rest of the galaxy.

"All that happens is an impoved ability to integrate with technology."  Oh, yeah?  Prove it, because the way those husks and turians and whatnot suddenly decided to stop fighting says otherwise.  Also, the Catalyst was pretty clear that  the choice would "combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework."  This sounds a little deeper than a simple hardware upgrade.  Granted, you don't have to go all crazy like me and cry Borg, but you gotta admit it's a bit more complicated than letting people use their buttholes as USB ports.

"... and I desire to release them when I can..."  Hold the phone, Xil--YOU don't get to do anything.  You're dead.  You died while the Catalyst uploaded your "essence."  The thing running the Reapers isn't you, but a computer with your memories and personality.  If you trust that computer to do what you would have done, then so be it.

Temporarily. To win one war.

Still, we proved it's possible, didn't we?  And we can do it again, even if it's hard and we stumble along the way.  I have more faith in them--the people I fought with, the people I fought to protect--than the Reapers.

[AdmiralCheez]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Synthesis frees the Reapers, the avatars of ancient civilizations. Synthesis grants the Reapers the self-determination that they have always lacked. They benefit from this choice in the same way that everyone else does. The Reapers were never the bad guys. The Catalyst was the villain, and yet, it wasn't a traditional villain. It was simply an AI that could not relate to other beings.

The Catalyst also breaks the lore, and personally I liked Harby and Sov better when they weren't mindless pawns.  But even if you care about Reaper civil liberties that much, remember that you only "set them free" by changing the core essence of what they are--the Harbinger that signs up as a bell ringer for the Salvation Army is not the same Harbinger that tried to kill yo' ass in ME2.

[Xilizhra]

"All that happens is an impoved ability to integrate with technology." Oh, yeah? Prove it, because the way those husks and turians and whatnot suddenly decided to stop fighting says otherwise. Also, the Catalyst was pretty clear that the choice would "combine all synthetic and organic life into a new framework." This sounds a little deeper than a simple hardware upgrade. Granted, you don't have to go all crazy like me and cry Borg, but you gotta admit it's a bit more complicated than letting people use their buttholes as USB ports.

Well, the husks may have gained understanding of organics and found some way to signal their own surrender. And the "new framework" is ultimately the ability to better integrate with technology itself.

"... and I desire to release them when I can..." Hold the phone, Xil--YOU don't get to do anything. You're dead. You died while the Catalyst uploaded your "essence." The thing running the Reapers isn't you, but a computer with your memories and personality. If you trust that computer to do what you would have done, then so be it.

Given that my roleplaying determines what the Catalyst is, my actions shape it and I consider itself to be my second character after the first one dies. Hence, I still refer to it as myself.

Still, we proved it's possible, didn't we? And we can do it again, even if it's hard and we stumble along the way. I have more faith in them--the people I fought with, the people I fought to protect--than the Reapers.

Maybe so, but that's ultimately irrelevant next to the geth genocide, Collector genocide, and even Reaper genocide. Also miscellaneous other synthetics who'd die.

The Catalyst also breaks the lore, and personally I liked Harby and Sov better when they weren't mindless pawns. But even if you care about Reaper civil liberties that much, remember that you only "set them free" by changing the core essence of what they are--the Harbinger that signs up as a bell ringer for the Salvation Army is not the same Harbinger that tried to kill yo' ass in ME2.

If you consider having the original priority set mean destruction regardless, it's still less death than would happen under Destroy, and life gets to continue in a new form with the Reapers if you consider them having died before.

[CosmicGnosis]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Synthesis frees the Reapers, the avatars of ancient civilizations. Synthesis grants the Reapers the self-determination that they have always lacked. They benefit from this choice in the same way that everyone else does. The Reapers were never the bad guys. The Catalyst was the villain, and yet, it wasn't a traditional villain. It was simply an AI that could not relate to other beings.

The Catalyst also breaks the lore, and personally I liked Harby and Sov better when they weren't mindless pawns.  But even if you care about Reaper civil liberties that much, remember that you only "set them free" by changing the core essence of what they are--the Harbinger that signs up as a bell ringer for the Salvation Army is not the same Harbinger that tried to kill yo' ass in ME2.

I could argue that it would be the real Harbinger, although that would be the Leviathans... Still, should I condemn every Reaper to death just because some of them might contain aggressive or egotistical species?

Am I really a fool to have some empathy for the Reapers? They are valid beings, despite their birth. The destruction they caused wasn't their fault. This makes complete sense. How else would every harvested species just suddenly conclude, "Gee, guys! Harvesting really is a great idea!"? It makes sense that a central overlord like the Catalyst exists, and that it subdues the wills of the harvested species.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 18 octobre 2012 - 01:50 .

[Arxduke]

I finished the series with the Synthesis choice, I was content and stubborn to stick with the Destroy choice, as Shepard lives, which is my happy ending. After I thought about I realized that Synthesis really was my happy ending, for many multiple reasons. Of course if only Shepard lived in that option, then I would seriously and truly be content.

It just sucks seeing Kaidan all alone. T_T

Then there are those who are not happy with the reapers surviving this. I mean, who can blame them? From the very beginning, once we learn who the real enemy is, we are focused and bent on destryoing the reapers and saving the galaxy, not preserving them as well. So I can see why this option is a no-go for many.

Modifié par Arxduke, 18 octobre 2012 - 01:49 .

[RiptideX1090]

Xilizhra wrote...


Maybe so, but that's ultimately irrelevant next to the geth genocide, Collector genocide, and even Reaper genocide. Also miscellaneous other synthetics who'd die.

Legion would rather his geth be destroyed than plugged back into the Reapers, and I can't see the geth being too happy with a bunch of Reapers keeping a perpetual eye on them, making sure they don't go rogue or something,even though they just fought to save the galaxy. The Collectors were worse than dead, that was an act of mercy, and the Reapers were monsters who deserved to die, and anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying much attention to the last few games. What they did to all those trillions, quadrillions of people, is not forgivable.

The geth can be rebuilt. What you do to Synthetics and Organics in Synthesis? That's permanent.

[RiptideX1090]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I could argue that it would be the real Harbinger, although that would be the Leviathans... Still, should I condemn every Reaper to death just because some of them might contain aggressive or egotistical species?

Am I really a fool to have some empathy for the Reapers? They are valid beings, despite their birth. The destruction they caused wasn't their fault. This make complete sense. How else would every harvested species just suddenly conclude, "Gee, guys! Harvesting really is a great idea!" It makes sense that a central overlord like the Catalyst exists, and that it subdues the wills of the harvested species.

What species they contain is irrelevant, they're all genocidal monsters, and any species inside is enslaved to the Catalyst, which you didn't get rid of in Synthesis.

In my opinion? You are a fool, yes. The Reapers are not people, those who are inside them are long gone, and their very existance warps the minds of people near them. Their very existance is a threat, and it must be purged to free the galaxy. You want to do those people inside the Reapers a service? Free them, like we freed the Collectors. Let them rest in peace.

[Xilizhra]

Legion would rather his geth be destroyed than plugged back into the Reapers, and I can't see the geth being too happy with a bunch of Reapers keeping a perpetual eye on them, making sure they don't go rogue or something,even though they just fought to save the galaxy. The Collectors were worse than dead, that was an act of mercy, and the Reapers were monsters who deserved to die, and anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying much attention to the last few games. What they did to all those trillions, quadrillions of people, is not forgivable.

I have no reason to "keep an eye" on the geth. The krogan, maybe, but the geth are trustworthy. The Collectors aren't extinct, and do show signs of sentience; I believe they can be uplifted into a better state. The Reapers themselves were under mind control as well, and aren't actually culpable for anything.

[CosmicGnosis]

RiptideX1090 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I could argue that it would be the real Harbinger, although that would be the Leviathans... Still, should I condemn every Reaper to death just because some of them might contain aggressive or egotistical species?

Am I really a fool to have some empathy for the Reapers? They are valid beings, despite their birth. The destruction they caused wasn't their fault. This make complete sense. How else would every harvested species just suddenly conclude, "Gee, guys! Harvesting really is a great idea!" It makes sense that a central overlord like the Catalyst exists, and that it subdues the wills of the harvested species.

What species they contain is irrelevant, they're all genocidal monsters, and any species inside is enslaved to the Catalyst, which you didn't get rid of in Synthesis.

In my opinion? You are a fool, yes. The Reapers are not people, those who are inside them are long gone, and their very existance warps the minds of people near them. Their very existance is a threat, and it must be purged to free the galaxy. You want to do those people inside the Reapers a service? Free them, like we freed the Collectors. Let them rest in peace.

How easy it is to diminish the existence of the "other", to condemn something that you don't understand.

Look, if we had never learned about the Catalyst, I wouldn't object to killing the Reapers. But we've learned that the situation is completely different from what we expected. Thus, we have to reconsider our ethical positions.

Modifié par CosmicGnosis, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:02 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, the husks may have gained understanding of organics and found some way to signal their own surrender. And the "new framework" is ultimately the ability to better integrate with technology itself.

But the soldiers simply stopped firing.  There was no surrender.  There was no cheering.  Everything just... stopped.  I find that incredibly unsettling.

And what does it mean to "better integrate with technology?"  Can Joker and EDI make babies now?  Or is it, like, mind-to-mind stuff, because Overlord and the Prothean beacons do that.  Cybernetics?  Shepard.  We integrate fine, thanks.

Given that my roleplaying determines what the Catalyst is, my actions shape it and I consider itself to be my second character after the first one dies. Hence, I still refer to it as myself.

Okeydokes.  Me?  I can't consider that thing to be the same as my Shepard.  If it were Shepard's brain in a robot body or something, I'd dig it.  But then were getting into the philosophical quagmire of "identity" again.

Maybe so, but that's ultimately irrelevant next to the geth genocide, Collector genocide, and even Reaper genocide. Also miscellaneous other synthetics who'd die.

The Collectors are tools; like husks, they are incapable of free will.  I am not comfortable with what happened to EDI/the geth and thus have headcanoned it away.  And the Reapers?  Cosmic justice.

If you consider having the original priority set mean destruction regardless, it's still less death than would happen under Destroy, and life gets to continue in a new form with the Reapers if you consider them having died before.

So synthesizing the Reapers makes new life.  So does sex.  Sex is more fun than Reapers.  Even when sex doesn't produce new life, it's more fun than Reapers.

As for this whole "less death" thing...  I'd rather die than be a slave!