272 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You know, it's beginning to really bug me the way you people keep on lamenting the fate of the geth when you're the ones killing them. This state of affairs is entirely your doing.

*shrugs* Beats being ruled by/fused with Reapers.  Seriously, we've been over this.  Drop it.

(Also there's a lot of irony and tongue-in-cheek humor going on here.  Bioware didn't take the endings seriously, so why should we?)

I have no choice but to do so. I'm trying to roleplay through this while using only such headcanon as is allowed by the narrative.

[Twilight_Princess]

MegaSovereign wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...

bad luck geth did it again (?)

My sides.

 Brilliant! Legion's would be

"Finally gets a soul, has to die for some reason"

[mesmerizedish]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Boy, it sucks to be geth.

But damn, it feels good to be a gangsta.

[AdmiralCheez]

Xilizhra wrote...

I have no choice but to do so. I'm trying to roleplay through this while using only such headcanon as is allowed by the narrative.

And is raining on everyon's parade and criticizing people for making different choices/adopting headcanon part of that roleplay?  Because seriously people can pick whatever ending they want.  I don't really care since it's not my game--I just like to give my reasons for my own choices, pointing out things here and there about why I DIDN'T choose something else.  Sure, I confront people with tough questions (are you REALLY okay with having a synthetic copy of yourself run the galay?) to see if they've really thought it through, and if they have and they're cool with it, all is well.

The only time I ever get rowdy is when people like you, Eterna5, and HDY 2.0 (is that his name?) get all up in my face to try to convince me that their choices are the ones I should be making.  I have no need or reason to believe that the way I play my game is the best possible way--I play for MY personal enjoyment, not yours.

But this is not an ending thread.  This is a thread lamenting the fact that the geth get screwed over at least twice a week.

[Xilizhra]

It's possible that you don't tell us that we're doing things wrong. However, a very sizable portion, possibly a majority, of Destroy fans do. This can induce retaliatory aggression in our own side sometimes. I apologize if I was attacking your own playthrough, but if you can give a similar speech to your own side, it would be helpful.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Xilizhra wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

But Sovereign was a total blowhard and Harbinger was, well, campy. I don't see much of value being lost.

Next you're going to tell me you liked Matrix Revelations.

Never seen it. But Sovereign was... kind of a stream of cliches that lost all of their punch after I killed the thing.

As oppsed to the catalyst which your old, trite rogue AI?

[Steelcan]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

I didn't like how the Geth were turned into innocent saints in ME3.

I also thought that Shepard's emotion and Legion's shame regarding concealing and carrying the old machine code was too forced.

But yeah, if you're a Geth it kinda sucks.

. The Consensus Mission:sick:

[GreyLycanTrope]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

I didn't like how the Geth were turned into innocent saints in ME3.

I also thought that Shepard's emotion and Legion's shame regarding concealing and carrying the old machine code was too forced.

But yeah, if you're a Geth it kinda sucks.

I wouldn't go as far as completly innocent despite being a geth sympathizer myself.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 19 octobre 2012 - 12:41 .

[Sable Rhapsody]

Greylycantrope wrote...
I wouldn't go as far as completly innocent despite being a geth sympathizer myself.

Agreed.  I don't think any race or faction is portrayed as totally innocent.  The asari are the closest, but that's probably just because of the writers' hardon for blue space booty.

[MegaSovereign]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...
I wouldn't go as far as completly innocent despite being a geth sympathizer myself.

Agreed.  I don't think any race or faction is portrayed as totally innocent.  The asari are the closest, but that's probably just because of the writers' hardon for blue space booty.

Near the end of ME3 the Asari were antagonized for witholding a Prothean Beacon that could have stopped the Reapers earlier.

[AdmiralCheez]

Xilizhra wrote...

It's possible that you don't tell us that we're doing things wrong. However, a very sizable portion, possibly a majority, of Destroy fans do. This can induce retaliatory aggression in our own side sometimes. I apologize if I was attacking your own playthrough, but if you can give a similar speech to your own side, it would be helpful.

They're not "my side," though.  There's no reason for me to be part of any group or subscribe to its ideologies, just because we happen to have one thing in common.  Lumping people together like this is what causes prejudice and conflict, and it's one of those lessons Mass Effect would have taught you if you were paying enough attention.

As for lecturing other people who picked Destruction, I've never really had one get in my face about it, so I never made it a priority.  Seriously, I don't go out of my way to pick fights unless I'm in a particularly nasty mood.  I've already made it perfectly clear that I'm NOT okay with genocide (except Reapers because of reasons), and this thread should make it pretty obvious that I believe in synthetic personhood.  I've also discussed how Destruction can potentially leave the galaxy in ruins, how there's no guarantee of peace or stability, and so on.  So it's not like I think it's the most perfect solution to everything, nor will I advocate it when people value the preservation of life over freedom and self-determination.  Ultimately, if you're seriously considering Destroy, you have to be okay with an imperfect galaxy.

I AM somewhat offended by people who actually ENJOY killing EDI/the geth, though.  CAN'T YOU SEE THEY ARE MY BABIES?!?

GOD DAMN IT WHY DOES EVERY THREAD WIND UP BEING AN ENDING THREAD

[SeptimusMagistos]

I'm pretty sure the geth would be pretty understanding about the consequences of Control. Shepard's uploaded himself to a well-armed platform, that's all. And if they got that far, the geth love Shepard. So I see no problem there.

And there is no particular reason for geth to object to Synthesis either.

[Xilizhra]

GOD DAMN IT WHY DOES EVERY THREAD WIND UP BEING AN ENDING THREAD

I think it's because you talked about the endings in the OP.

[AdmiralCheez]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think it's because you talked about the endings in the OP.

Oh god.  You're right.

I've been indoctrinated!

ENDINGS EVERYWHERE!!!

It is too late--save yourselves!

[GreyLycanTrope]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I think it's because you talked about the endings in the OP.

Oh god.  You're right.

I've been indoctrinated!

ENDINGS EVERYWHERE!!!

It is too late--save yourselves!

It's already in my sig, there is no escape

[Dean_the_Young]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Dear HYR 2.0,

Forcefully injecting new data into someone's mind without their consent counts as reprogramming.

Boop.

As by the time you read this you've been reprogrammed, by carry-on logic you now are no longer a free-willed individual. By rights of an uncarring egotistical powertrip, I claim you as my own.

Make me a funny picture, Cheez.

In my opinion, it does not matter if people gain "better understanding" through it and forever are shiny and happy because it violates free will on a galactic scale.  I was uncomfortable with rewriting the Heretics, so it's only natural that I'd take issue with doing the same thing to every sentient being within a 100,000 light-year radius.

And how does Synthesis do that? Nothing in it says new understanding comes immediately, is forced into people's minds, or otherwise forcibly changes their opinions and personalities.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 19 octobre 2012 - 01:20 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Boop.

As by the time you read this you've been reprogrammed, by carry-on logic you now are no longer a free-willed individual. By rights of an uncarring egotistical powertrip, I claim you as my own.

Make me a funny picture, Cheez.

ur a silly goose

Anyway, I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but listening to a song or reading something on the internet isn't the same as someone going inside your head and manually rearranging your neurons.  Learning may happen unconsciously, but it's not forced suddenly into your brain by some sort of magical machine-god.

And how does Synthesis do that? Nothing in it says new understanding comes immediately, is forced into people's minds, or otherwise forcibly changes their opinions and personalities.

Look at the cutscenes: the changes are immediate.  The fighting spontaneously stops.  And not even weeks later, suddenly everyone's getting along.  Regardless, nobody got to vote on whether they wanted magical green circuits imbedded in their skin.  It's ambiguous, but it's still unsettling.

Although it's an interesting moral dilemna: If you fundamentally changed everyone without their consent, but they were better of mentally, emotionally, and physically as a result--to a point that their old selves would approve of what they'd become--is it ethical?

[pmac_tk421]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Boop.

As by the time you read this you've been reprogrammed, by carry-on logic you now are no longer a free-willed individual. By rights of an uncarring egotistical powertrip, I claim you as my own.

Make me a funny picture, Cheez.

ur a silly goose

Anyway, I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but listening to a song or reading something on the internet isn't the same as someone going inside your head and manually rearranging your neurons.  Learning may happen unconsciously, but it's not forced suddenly into your brain by some sort of magical machine-god.

And how does Synthesis do that? Nothing in it says new understanding comes immediately, is forced into people's minds, or otherwise forcibly changes their opinions and personalities.

Look at the cutscenes: the changes are immediate.  The fighting spontaneously stops.  And not even weeks later, suddenly everyone's getting along.  Regardless, nobody got to vote on whether they wanted magical green circuits imbedded in their skin.  It's ambiguous, but it's still unsettling.

Although it's an interesting moral dilemna: If you fundamentally changed everyone without their consent, but they were better of mentally, emotionally, and physically as a result--to a point that their old selves would approve of what they'd become--is it ethical?

 I feel that a change that makes everyone more intelligent, less aggresive, less discriminatory and other things implied in synthesis, I would call it a positive change, and everyone wants a future where everyone isn't an **** right... RIGHT... oh wait. This is BSN.

[SeptimusMagistos]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Although it's an interesting moral dilemna: If you fundamentally changed everyone without their consent, but they were better of mentally, emotionally, and physically as a result--to a point that their old selves would approve of what they'd become--is it ethical?

It's almost as if that was supposed to be the question you asked yourself when you looked at Synthesis, huh?

[AdmiralCheez]

pmac_tk421 wrote...

 I feel that a change that makes everyone more intelligent, less aggresive, less discriminatory and other things implied in synthesis, I would call it a positive change, and everyone wants a future where everyone isn't an **** right... RIGHT... oh wait. This is BSN.

But there's a problem: it's not consensual.  Nobody chose to be synthesized, and the person who made that choice died, so in effect did not undergo the process him/herself.  Is it still okay if it's not consensual?

Let's pretend that doctors invent a pill that makes people stop being violent or racist or whatever.  This pill also has the added benefit of making people smarter, healthier, and happier.  Now, would it be okay for the government to force everyone to take this pill?  Would it be okay if they sent soldiers out in the middle of the night to sneak into your room and place a tablet under your tongue while you slept?

Compounding the issue, we're not sure what Synthesis actually does.  We don't know exactly how it changes people, much less how much it changes them.  We don't know if there are side effects.  In fact, in this case our "pill" has never been tested on anyone, ever.  The only evidence we have to go by is that a bunch of genocidal maniacs went around slaughtering people and destroying cities under the claim that they were doing everyone the same favor.

Oh, and there are pretty cutscenes with a nice voiceover to make you feel good about it.  I guess you can count that as evidence.

@Septimus: Duh!

[SeptimusMagistos]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Septimus: Duh!

Sarcasm. I was responding to the fact that you were treating it as some kind of new revelation as opposed to something that was meant to be a factor in the choice all along.

[Bill Casey]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I'm pretty sure the geth would be pretty understanding about the consequences of Control. Shepard's uploaded himself to a well-armed platform, that's all. And if they got that far, the geth love Shepard. So I see no problem there.

And there is no particular reason for geth to object to Synthesis either.

I appreciate you trying to make me feel less bad about killing them, I really do...
But I just don't think the Geth would be that horrible...

[wantedman dan]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Although it's an interesting moral dilemna: If you fundamentally changed everyone without their consent, but they were better of mentally, emotionally, and physically as a result--to a point that their old selves would approve of what they'd become--is it ethical?

Critically, this is an ethical scholar's dream question: on one hand, you'd have someone claiming the utilitarian calculus demands we do such out of the greater good; also, you'd probably have the deontological scholars lauding the decision because of the duty-driven approach to such. On another, however, we'd see someone arguing that the inviolate, inalienable rights--such as self-determination--we, as sapient creatures, have is in complete contradiction to the utilitarian calculus in that violating these rights is not actually in our self-interest as a collective due to the precedent being set. Furthermore, deontological scholars would bristle at the possibility that someone did, in fact, act not out of duty, but of incilination that "Yeah! Peace and equality are cool, man."

However, in reality, it isn't that black and white. I'm personally inclined to argue that, because self-determination is such an important component to sapient life, and, because synthesis violates this right we all share, it is thereby unethical and immoral to choose such, even if it is for the better. It simply isn't my choice, in my opinion, for absolutely every single organism in the galaxy, down to the very last single-cell life to forcefully abide by what I deem as right. I have to ask myself, "What precedent is this setting? What actions will become of this?"

The risks far outweigh the benefits.