370 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

Reorte wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I think this dogma of "you can't trust the Catalyst" is based on the idea that "if you compromise with evil (=trust the Catalyst) you will get corrupted (=indoctrinated)". Of course that's complete nonsense. Also, I don't see the Catalyst as evil. Good and evil need a human perspective to be meaningful, and the Catalyst has a thoroughly non-human perspective, to a much greater degree than any non-human species of the galaxy. I treat the cycle as the result of a cosmic accident, and I will effect its end in a cool and detached manner without any sort of prejudice.

A decision like this is doomed to fail if it is made while being consumed by moral outrage.

It's doomed to do something horrific if the ethical implications aren't considered.

Not so. How desirable the outcome is is unrelated to the means I must use to achieve it. That's where traditional morality gets things wrong. Synthesis creates a golden age including a krogan cultural renaissance and unmasked quarians at the price of doing something highly questionable. That some people are so determined to attach a bad outcome to Synthesis against a whole five-minute epilogue telling them otherwise is itself a result of the inability to let go of the dogma that doing morally questionable things always results in a bad outcome.

As for trusting the Catalyst, for me it's simply a question of "Well, can it make things any worse?" (although altering every living thing in the galaxy may well be regarded as worse than letting a few trillion get killed now - at least it's only relatively short term).

Some see it that way. That's their prerogative. As I see it, the changes are justifiable if they're good. Many people decrying Synthesis sound like "Nooo.....I didn't choose this, make it go away" after being gifted with 100 additional years of lifespan. Sure, some may genuinely not want that, but then....sorry, the benefits of the many count for more. Also, I get that people are afraid of being implanted with "alien stuff", but given that people aren't bothered in the epilogue, that's not how such things work. Just as the titanium screw I have in my radius, the changes will feel as natural as if people had been born with them after a period of adaptation. Otherwise, "integration with technology" would be a lie. As said above by Auintus and several times by me in my Synthesis thread, the EC highly suggests that *what* you are might be changed, but *who* you are will not. The characters in the epilogue appear very much like themselves.

[AlanC9]

LucasShark wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

What matters is that there are now living techno-zombies wandering about the galaxy and that's supposedly the best fate for all involved.

What's wrong with being a techno-zombie? I get that it's supposed to be a bad thing, but why? I wouldn't mind some cybernetic upgrades myself. Neither would any of our Shepards; they already have some.

You mind being a horrifying conglomeration of several minds jammed togeather into a horriffic war machine?  Fairly sure most would react badly to that.  I am referring of course to Praetorians, Brutes and the like.  Remember?  All of those are still around.

I wouldn't know; it's too alien to my experience. You'd have to ask them. If they want to commit suicide , they're well equipped to do so.

Shouldn't that be their call instead of yours?

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 décembre 2012 - 08:12 .

[LucasShark]

AlanC9 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

What matters is that there are now living techno-zombies wandering about the galaxy and that's supposedly the best fate for all involved.

What's wrong with being a techno-zombie? I get that it's supposed to be a bad thing, but why? I wouldn't mind some cybernetic upgrades myself. Neither would any of our Shepards; they already have some.

You mind being a horrifying conglomeration of several minds jammed togeather into a horriffic war machine?  Fairly sure most would react badly to that.  I am referring of course to Praetorians, Brutes and the like.  Remember?  All of those are still around.

I wouldn't know; it's too alien to my experience. You'd have to ask them. If they want to commit suicide , they're well equipped to do so.

Praetorians can't even do that: killing themselves would kill everyone around them in a puff of toxic fumes.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

LucasShark wrote...

And you're an idiot: Read what I've written elsewhere.

 Are you naturally this b!tchy, or is that just me?

*nonsense*
How is that not horriffic to you?

Because you're talking nonsense. We put one of your claims to the test and you failed miserably to support it. Now you want to throw a bunch of new claims at me supported by nothing else but your arbitrary opinion. Sorry, but your opinion hasn't earned the right to be taken seriously after the previous epic-fail by you.

[LucasShark]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

And you're an idiot: Read what I've written elsewhere.

 Are you naturally this b!tchy, or is that just me?

*nonsense*
How is that not horriffic to you?

Because you're talking nonsense. We put one of your claims to the test and you failed miserably to support it. Now you want to throw a bunch of new claims at me supported by nothing else but your arbitrary opinion. Sorry, but your opinion hasn't earned the right to be taken seriously after the previous epic-fail by you.

For you're information: I'm visually impared, I COULD NEVER TELL YOU* WHICH PICTURE IS WHICH.

And calling what I said "nonsense" just means you're ignoring it: when all I did was point out the practical realities of what Bioware proposed.

Modifié par LucasShark, 11 décembre 2012 - 08:22 .

[Zavox]

Auintus wrote...
The trip to the moon was a hell of a gamble. They had more data to work with, but still. If they'd miscalculated something, the whole shuttle could have wound up nowhere. Synthesis we don't have the chance to make those calculations.

I'm not implying they didn't take risks, I'm saying it isn't a gamble. If you have data, can make calculations and can show there's good odds that it can be done, how is it a gamble? It's the same as poker, a good poker player isn't gambling. He's merely taking calculated risks.

So, no, the moon wasn't a gamble, it was definately a risky venture though.

Auintus wrote...
Even in-character, the Catalyst explains everything. Synthetics would obliterate organics completely, while the Reapers "upload" them, so that at least something is preserved. My reason for trusting him is that his demeanor seems more casually curious than focused on manipulation. He seems more interested in getting Shepard to understand than pushing him towards one solution or another.

He wanted to use a physical form, so he grabbed something that was on Shepard's mind. What should it have done?  Appeared as a platapus?

The Catalyst never shows any data, nor does he come with reasoning as to why it's inevitable that synthetics will always destroy organics. He merely states it. Shepard (paragon one) has been working during the entire trilogy to bring synthetics and organics together. To crumble in that view because of mere words by the one being you've been fighting the entire trilogy against is weird to say the least. In any case, the only evidence that Shepard has on synthetics who have been perpetrating genocide after genocide is that it's the Reapers doing the genocide. Any other synthetic genocide has been hearsay, or in the event of (albeit overly agressive) self defense.

I must say it's too quick to trust your main enemies leader after a few words. If the Catalyst truly wishes to have a reasoned discussion, then he would show some data and maybe appear like an actual AI/VI we've seen alot during ME, for example, an orb. How about looking like a Leviathan? The fact that he took the form of the child is not simply to have a familiar figure, it's merely trying to evoke emotion for there is countless other figures to take from that do not do so.

Auintus wrote...
No one understands the Reapers' purpose until you meet the Catalyst. You are putting your faith in a psychologist when you should be consulting a physicist, if the metaphor makes sense. The people you trust are basing their beliefs on conjecture, while the Catalyst gives you a straightforward, if biased, explanation.

Maybe I took the "pity" bit too personally and it escalated from there. Drop it?

I dare say no one understands the Reapers' purpose even until now. To solve the question of genocide perpetrated by synthetics the Catalyst creates the Reapers to do the genocide. That doesn't solve it, that merely enlarges the problem.

Agreed, let's drop it and keep to arguments.

Auintus wrote...
I am not using hindsight, I am, to your great disappointment, I'm sure, trusting the Catalyst. The Reapers are "each a nation" and you are destroying them without a care.
The geth and EDI are definately dead, the EC shows as much. Heck, the EC shows that the Catalyst was being honest about the whole thing, thus my trust was well-placed.

Yet, it's still hindsight. This is pretty much the discussion we're having on other quotes of each other. I see no reason to trust the Catalyst, it gives none that should make you trust it. 

Ah, well, guess I'll have to admit I am partial to the IT theory then.

Auintus wrote...
I think this is the problem: I see it as changing what they are, not who they are. That difference, in my view, makes it perfectly acceptable. You may disagree. That is part of who you are, and changing that would be unforgivable. Were I given the chance to modify what you are for the better, I would do so. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense in the slightest. You're advocating that it's perfectly fine to change for example my leg without my consent?

Both changing what someone is, or who someone is without their consent are deplorable actions. It's very debatable whether the changes are for the better aswell. You may find them better, someone else may not. Your opinion is not universal, just like mine isn't. However, there are ethical codes that are accepted among humanity.

Aiuntus wrote...
I trust the Catalyst, you do not. That much is clear. The ending also makes clear that the Catalyst is being completely honest with you. I'm not using hindsight, I'm trusting the Catalyst. The fact that you see it as hindsight just means he was being straight with you.

"You could have gotten us all killed!
"But I didn't."   I think I saw that on a movie once. Kinda sums up my view. Trusting the Catalyst is a risk, it's one I took, and it's one that paid off.

Whether you trust the catalyst or not, it still makes it hindsight to say:

So you'd rather lose on your own terms than win on the terms of a device that everyone admits they have no freaking clue how it works? I...okay. Not my choice, but that's your game

In no way can we ascertain that you would lose on your own terms, nor can you ascertain that you win on his terms. Whether you trust him or not, it gives you no guarantees. 


Anyway, if one would manage to shoot an apple from someone's head without killing the person, would it therefore be ok to have done it? No, it wouldn't.

Trusting the Catalyst is a gamble, a gamble, with the stakes being the entire galaxy, with the leader of your exterminators. Why would anyone do that, unless they provide insurmountable evidence of their view?

AlanC9 wrote...
Really? Magellan wasn't gambling?

I think your rhetoric got a little bit ahead of your substantive position there. You're against running disproportionaterisks, right? Not against running any risks whatsoever.

Destroying the Geth and EDI definately is a bummer though, but there's no reason to belief that would happen and it's still debatable whether it actually did happen.

You did look at the memorial wall, right? EDI's dead. I suppose Bio could have simply forgotten to show the geth in the ending slides. But that's weapons-grade headcanon and you know it.

Yes, Magellan wasn't gambling. Sure he took a risk, but a calculated/educated one, that eventually proved to be somewhat flawed at points. You can't however say he just went and sailed the world in the hopes of finding a western route. It was already postulated that there was one if you travel further south than the Rio de la Plata. Vasco Nunez de Balboa already had seen that there was a sea or ocean on the east coast, on which Magellan based his exploration.

Ah, never have seen it on the memorial wall, but now that you mention it I see it at the top left. Well, I guess I'm sorry on that account then, my bad EDI. 

Nothing is headcannon about the endings yet, we have yet to see which of the endings gets chosen as headcannon, if at all. I still hold a small glimmer of hope that the IT theory (or something similar) eventually holds truth.

AlanC9 wrote...
Is there any reason to think that shooting the Catalyst would work? He sure looks like a hologram to me.

Blowing up the Citadel might work, if you could do it. No particular reason this would accomplish anything more than exterminating 90% of the human race when the relay blows, of course.

I didn't mean it literally. I've mentioned before that as soon as the Catalyst said he created the reapers and was it's leader, I would've asked Hackett to blow the area Shepard and the Catalyst are in sky-high. Preferably giving me a chance to escape, but if unable I would sacrifice.

Sure, we won't know whether it may have worked, but it sure as hell seems more plausible than the current space magic endings do, by either shooting a tube, grabbing two killer poles or jumping into a beam of disintegrating light.

Modifié par Zavox, 12 décembre 2012 - 12:38 .

[Reorte]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

It's doomed to do something horrific if the ethical implications aren't considered.

Not so. How desirable the outcome is is unrelated to the means I must use to achieve it. That's where traditional morality gets things wrong. Synthesis creates a golden age including a krogan cultural renaissance and unmasked quarians at the price of doing something highly questionable. That some people are so determined to attach a bad outcome to Synthesis against a whole five-minute epilogue telling them otherwise is itself a result of the inability to let go of the dogma that doing morally questionable things always results in a bad outcome.

If what the epilogue says clashes with what some of the implications would be, or simply ignores the questions rather than addressing them then it feels like propaganda. People only attach bad outcomes to it because the idea of it raises the questions, some of which seem inevitable. The sheer nonsense of it probably prejudices people against it too. But you are arguing for the "end justifies the means", always a dubious path to go down and certainly not a universal justification.

As for trusting the Catalyst, for me it's simply a question of "Well, can it make things any worse?" (although altering every living thing in the galaxy may well be regarded as worse than letting a few trillion get killed now - at least it's only relatively short term).

Some see it that way. That's their prerogative. As I see it, the changes are justifiable if they're good. Many people decrying Synthesis sound like "Nooo.....I didn't choose this, make it go away" after being gifted with 100 additional years of lifespan. Sure, some may genuinely not want that, but then....sorry, the benefits of the many count for more. Also, I get that people are afraid of being implanted with "alien stuff", but given that people aren't bothered in the epilogue, that's not how such things work. Just as the titanium screw I have in my radius, the changes will feel as natural as if people had been born with them after a period of adaptation. Otherwise, "integration with technology" would be a lie. As said above by Auintus and several times by me in my Synthesis thread, the EC highly suggests that *what* you are might be changed, but *who* you are will not. The characters in the epilogue appear very much like themselves.

Don't you think that people might feel very diifferently about a change they've decided to have and one that's been imposed upon them? If synthesis is technically possible then fine, let it be an option for individuals to chose after the Reapers have been dealt with. The fact that no-one seems bothered in the epilogue is part of the faiure I mentioned above. It's simply impossible to believe that lots of people would not be bothered. There's also the issue that's been raised many, many times that if it doesn't change anything at all about who then just how is it supposed to solve the problem the Catalyst claims exists? Also, can you change what someone is without changing who they are? The changes are pretty fundamental.

If you could get the consent of enough of the entire galaxy (including all the planets that'll be affected but aren't even known about, including every single intelligent low tech or no tech race, AND demonstrate that the serious ecological concerns are unfounded) then it might be OK. Without then you've not got a leg to stand on unless the alternatives are utterly dreadful (the steralization of the entire galaxy would be about the only unquestionably worse alternative and even the destruction of Refuse wouldn't come remotely close to that). If you want "it would be better for everyone" then you could easily defend a program of enforced steralisation to deal with population levels.

Modifié par Reorte, 12 décembre 2012 - 01:06 .

[Auintus]

Zavox wrote...
I'm not implying they didn't take risks, I'm saying it isn't a gamble. If you have data, can make calculations and can show there's good odds that it can be done, how is it a gamble? It's the same as poker, a good poker player isn't gambling. He's merely taking calculated risks.

So, no, the moon wasn't a gamble, it was definately a risky venture though.

A gamble is a risk. You risk something in hope of it paying off. I don't see a difference.

The Catalyst never shows any data, nor does he come with reasoning as to why it's inevitable that synthetics will always destroy organics. He merely states it. Shepard (paragon one) has been working during the entire trilogy to bring synthetics and organics together. To crumble in that view because of mere words by the one being you've been fighting the entire trilogy against is weird to say the least. In any case, the only evidence that Shepard has on synthetics who have been perpetrating genocide after genocide is that it's the Reapers doing the genocide. Any other synthetic genocide has been hearsay, or in the event of (albeit overly agressive) self defense.

I must say it's too quick to trust your main enemies leader after a few words. If the Catalyst truly wishes to have a reasoned discussion, then he would show some data and maybe appear like an actual AI/VI we've seen alot during ME, for example, an orb. How about looking like a Leviathan? The fact that he took the form of the child is not simply to have a familiar figure, it's merely trying to evoke emotion for there is countless other figures to take from that do not do so.

He doesn't even have time to tell you about the original designers of the Catalyst, yet you want evidence of every Synthetic rebellion since the age of the Leviathans? There isn't time for it. In-game, anyway.
Most of the VIs that show up as orbs are rather simple. EDI is an odd case, since she is primarily the Normandy. That kid was on Shepard's mind. I consider taking that form evidence that instead of digging around in Shepard's head, he just grabbed something off the top.

I dare say no one understands the Reapers' purpose even until now. To solve the question of genocide perpetrated by synthetics the Catalyst creates the Reapers to do the genocide. That doesn't solve it, that merely enlarges the problem.

The Catalyst explains their purpose. They are to prevent the absolute extermination of organic life. The Reapers preserve it, while setting back the clock to by more time. It is not a permanent solution. Hell, it isn't a solution at all. It is buying time to solve the problem for good. Which is what the Crucible does, maybe.

Yet, it's still hindsight. This is pretty much the discussion we're having on other quotes of each other. I see no reason to trust the Catalyst, it gives none that should make you trust it. 

Ah, well, guess I'll have to admit I am partial to the IT theory then.

Not hindsight. The Catalyst explains the endings exactly as they occur. He tells you what will happen, exactly. If you trust him, he basically tells the future.

Oh. Well, that could be problematic.

No, it doesn't make sense in the slightest. You're advocating that it's perfectly fine to change for example my leg without my consent?

Both changing what someone is, or who someone is without their consent are deplorable actions. It's very debatable whether the changes are for the better aswell. You may find them better, someone else may not. Your opinion is not universal, just like mine isn't. However, there are ethical codes that are accepted among humanity.

For the better, yes.

And that is where we disagree. Can't really say that one is right or wrong...Well, you can, but it wouldn't get anyone anywhere. No point trying to change my mind. No point in me trying to change yours.
Not really. Every person has their own ethical codes. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't.

Whether you trust the catalyst or not, it still makes it hindsight to say:

So you'd rather lose on your own terms than win on the terms of a device that everyone admits they have no freaking clue how it works? I...okay. Not my choice, but that's your game

In no way can we ascertain that you would lose on your own terms, nor can you ascertain that you win on his terms. Whether you trust him or not, it gives you no guarantees. 


Anyway, if one would manage to shoot an apple from someone's head without killing the person, would it therefore be ok to have done it? No, it wouldn't.

Trusting the Catalyst is a gamble, a gamble, with the stakes being the entire galaxy, with the leader of your exterminators. Why would anyone do that, unless they provide insurmountable evidence of their view?

Throughout the game, pretty much everyone believes that the Crucible is the only real chance at winning. So if you choose not to use it, you lose, but you lose on your terms. If you trust the Catalyst, then you take one of the Crucible options. If you trust it, you know, or think you know, exactly what will happen, and it plays out exactly as the Catalyst claims.

Why would you try to shoot an apple from someone's head? There's no reason behind it. I think I get what you're saying though: X is holding Y hostage. A sniper takes a shot, knowing full well there is a chance of hitting Y instead of X. The sniper manages to hit X, and Y is free. I would say that is totally worth it.

Because you really don't have a choice? You have no idea how the thing works. The fact that the Catalyst even bothers explaining it to you, instead of just summoning the Reapers to trash it while you stand around wondering how the hell to activate it, is evidence of his honesty. Were it trying to deceive him, it could do soooo much better. I could do better, and I'm not even a million years old.

Modifié par Auintus, 12 décembre 2012 - 01:08 .

[Zavox]

Auintus wrote...
A gamble is a risk. You risk something in hope of it paying off. I don't see a difference.

Of course a gamble is a risk, they're pretty much synonyms. However there is a slight difference in their meaning as a calculated risk isn't directly synonymous with a gamble. Which is exactly what I've said. If you cannot see the difference between gambling (roulette) or taking calculated risks (professional poker) then I cannot help you.

Auintus wrote...
He doesn't even have time to tell you about the original designers of the Catalyst, yet you want evidence of every Synthetic rebellion since the age of the Leviathans? There isn't time for it. In-game, anyway.
Most of the VIs that show up as orbs are rather simple. EDI is an odd case, since she is primarily the Normandy. That kid was on Shepard's mind. I consider taking that form evidence that instead of digging around in Shepard's head, he just grabbed something off the top.

He doesn't have the time? Where did you get that notion from? Of course he has time, if anything he has more time than anyone else. You're just grasping at straws.

Auintus wrote...
The Catalyst explains their purpose. They are to prevent the absolute extermination of organic life. The Reapers preserve it, while setting back the clock to by more time. It is not a permanent solution. Hell, it isn't a solution at all. It is buying time to solve the problem for good. Which is what the Crucible does, maybe.

Yes, and that is simply ridiculous, as the Leviathans created the AI who is now causing the problems (the Catalyst). He himself is doing all along what he at the same time poses as the problem. Wouldn't it be better to give organics at the very least a chance to solve the problem before you wipe them out? Creating AI to solve the AI issue is just ridiculous. His explanation is flawed on so many levels, it's not an explanation at all. If anything his parameters should have him actively search and destroy any AI that gets created, instead of an organic extinction event every single time.

Auintus wrote...
Not hindsight. The Catalyst explains the endings exactly as they occur. He tells you what will happen, exactly. If you trust him, he basically tells the future.

Oh. Well, that could be problematic.

He tells you his vision of what will happen. You believing him has no basis whatsoever but for his fancy words. So, yes, saying synthesis is the best option to choose, at the moment of making the decision, on the basis of his words only and your trust in them is based on hindsight. Your trust in his words does not make the option better, the flaws in his statements still exist, the trampling on basic human rights still exist, the possibility of a trap still exists, etc. In no way are you able to say the choice is better to take than the others just because of your belief in the Catalyst. So, to say it's better than the other options is based on hindsight, even if you yourself cannot see it.

Auintus wrote...
For the better, yes.

And that is where we disagree. Can't really say that one is right or wrong...Well, you can, but it wouldn't get anyone anywhere. No point trying to change my mind. No point in me trying to change yours.
Not really. Every person has their own ethical codes. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't.

So, just because in your opinion my leg would be better off as a synthetic leg, you are allowed to change my leg without my consent? Seriously mate, that's one ****ed up moral to have.

I think you do not understand what I mean with ethical codes that are universal among humanity. One such example has already been given in our discussions (medicine experimentation). What you are talking about is simply ones own morals.

Auintus wrote...
Throughout the game, pretty much everyone believes that the Crucible is the only real chance at winning. So if you choose not to use it, you lose, but you lose on your terms. If you trust the Catalyst, then you take one of the Crucible options. If you trust it, you know, or think you know, exactly what will happen, and it plays out exactly as the Catalyst claims.

Why would you try to shoot an apple from someone's head? There's no reason behind it. I think I get what you're saying though: X is holding Y hostage. A sniper takes a shot, knowing full well there is a chance of hitting Y instead of X. The sniper manages to hit X, and Y is free. I would say that is totally worth it.

Because you really don't have a choice? You have no idea how the thing works. The fact that the Catalyst even bothers explaining it to you, instead of just summoning the Reapers to trash it while you stand around wondering how the hell to activate it, is evidence of his honesty. Were it trying to deceive him, it could do soooo much better. I could do better, and I'm not even a million years old.

Throughout the game, noone knew of the true being that is the catalyst, thus we had incomplete data to make our judgments on whether it's our only real chance at winning. Discovering the extent of the catalyst changes our perspective and may open other options not expected before it's discovery. Thus, your entire explanation just flatlines right there. I really wonder why you're even trying to defend a position of knowing the result of the choices before they happened. Believing or trusting (how missguided it may be), sure, but knowing... no.

No, that's entirely not what I'm trying to say. I'm not using that example, because there's an obvious reason for shooting, and neither is there any ethical problem to trying to shoot X, even if you accidentally hit Y. I'm using my example because there's ethical problems involved in doing so, for little expected gain at all.

Fine, if it could do sooooo much better, why didn't it solve the problem itself? Don't tell me that the catalyst needs the crucible, which apperantly only we can create. If it can create reapers that are supposedly so much more advanced than we are, and himself apperantly being so much more intelligent than anything in existence, why didn't it create the crucible himself to combine synthetics and organics?

Either it shows it's incapability of creating a crucible, thus making it no more intelligent than we are. Which in turn casts doubt on it's supposed inevitable conflict. OR it actually is afraid of losing, or at the very least doubting his chances.

In the end, it's simply bad writing filled with illogical contradictions and gaps, unless something like the IT is true.

I'm also going to leave this entire discussion at that. I see no end to a discussion on the merits of each choice if you hold the value you seem to convey. If you really belief that changing someones body without their consent is perfectly fine, based on solely your own opinion of it being better, the discussion with me will end here. 

Modifié par Zavox, 12 décembre 2012 - 04:08 .

[duranii]

Auintus wrote...

Zavox wrote...
I'm not implying they didn't take risks, I'm saying it isn't a gamble. If you have data, can make calculations and can show there's good odds that it can be done, how is it a gamble? It's the same as poker, a good poker player isn't gambling. He's merely taking calculated risks.

So, no, the moon wasn't a gamble, it was definately a risky venture though.

A gamble is a risk. You risk something in hope of it paying off. I don't see a difference.

The Catalyst never shows any data, nor does he come with reasoning as to why it's inevitable that synthetics will always destroy organics. He merely states it. Shepard (paragon one) has been working during the entire trilogy to bring synthetics and organics together. To crumble in that view because of mere words by the one being you've been fighting the entire trilogy against is weird to say the least. In any case, the only evidence that Shepard has on synthetics who have been perpetrating genocide after genocide is that it's the Reapers doing the genocide. Any other synthetic genocide has been hearsay, or in the event of (albeit overly agressive) self defense.

I must say it's too quick to trust your main enemies leader after a few words. If the Catalyst truly wishes to have a reasoned discussion, then he would show some data and maybe appear like an actual AI/VI we've seen alot during ME, for example, an orb. How about looking like a Leviathan? The fact that he took the form of the child is not simply to have a familiar figure, it's merely trying to evoke emotion for there is countless other figures to take from that do not do so.

He doesn't even have time to tell you about the original designers of the Catalyst, yet you want evidence of every Synthetic rebellion since the age of the Leviathans? There isn't time for it. In-game, anyway.
Most of the VIs that show up as orbs are rather simple. EDI is an odd case, since she is primarily the Normandy. That kid was on Shepard's mind. I consider taking that form evidence that instead of digging around in Shepard's head, he just grabbed something off the top.

I dare say no one understands the Reapers' purpose even until now. To solve the question of genocide perpetrated by synthetics the Catalyst creates the Reapers to do the genocide. That doesn't solve it, that merely enlarges the problem.

The Catalyst explains their purpose. They are to prevent the absolute extermination of organic life. The Reapers preserve it, while setting back the clock to by more time. It is not a permanent solution. Hell, it isn't a solution at all. It is buying time to solve the problem for good. Which is what the Crucible does, maybe.

Yet, it's still hindsight. This is pretty much the discussion we're having on other quotes of each other. I see no reason to trust the Catalyst, it gives none that should make you trust it. 

Ah, well, guess I'll have to admit I am partial to the IT theory then.

Not hindsight. The Catalyst explains the endings exactly as they occur. He tells you what will happen, exactly. If you trust him, he basically tells the future.

Oh. Well, that could be problematic.

No, it doesn't make sense in the slightest. You're advocating that it's perfectly fine to change for example my leg without my consent?

Both changing what someone is, or who someone is without their consent are deplorable actions. It's very debatable whether the changes are for the better aswell. You may find them better, someone else may not. Your opinion is not universal, just like mine isn't. However, there are ethical codes that are accepted among humanity.

For the better, yes.

And that is where we disagree. Can't really say that one is right or wrong...Well, you can, but it wouldn't get anyone anywhere. No point trying to change my mind. No point in me trying to change yours.
Not really. Every person has their own ethical codes. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't.

Whether you trust the catalyst or not, it still makes it hindsight to say:

So you'd rather lose on your own terms than win on the terms of a device that everyone admits they have no freaking clue how it works? I...okay. Not my choice, but that's your game

In no way can we ascertain that you would lose on your own terms, nor can you ascertain that you win on his terms. Whether you trust him or not, it gives you no guarantees. 


Anyway, if one would manage to shoot an apple from someone's head without killing the person, would it therefore be ok to have done it? No, it wouldn't.

Trusting the Catalyst is a gamble, a gamble, with the stakes being the entire galaxy, with the leader of your exterminators. Why would anyone do that, unless they provide insurmountable evidence of their view?

Throughout the game, pretty much everyone believes that the Crucible is the only real chance at winning. So if you choose not to use it, you lose, but you lose on your terms. If you trust the Catalyst, then you take one of the Crucible options. If you trust it, you know, or think you know, exactly what will happen, and it plays out exactly as the Catalyst claims.

Why would you try to shoot an apple from someone's head? There's no reason behind it. I think I get what you're saying though: X is holding Y hostage. A sniper takes a shot, knowing full well there is a chance of hitting Y instead of X. The sniper manages to hit X, and Y is free. I would say that is totally worth it.

Because you really don't have a choice? You have no idea how the thing works. The fact that the Catalyst even bothers explaining it to you, instead of just summoning the Reapers to trash it while you stand around wondering how the hell to activate it, is evidence of his honesty. Were it trying to deceive him, it could do soooo much better. I could do better, and I'm not even a million years old.

Flawed logic.  Your definition of "better" is not the same as someone else's.  Doing things to people without their consent is a violation of someone's free will.  This is not even a question of morality, since the operative phrase is "without their consent."  Therefore, it is factually established that violating someone's free will is by doing something without their consent.  Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant.  Since no one can see the future, there is absolutely no way to judge whether something is "better" or "worse."  Free will is not a question of morality, it is what defines our very existence.  People do things of their own free will to either harm or benefit others, therefore, it is not a function of morality.  It simply is.

The Reapers believed they were doing something "better" for organics by "ascending" them every 50,000 years.  However, you had no problem fighting them and killing them, did you?  What have you been fighting for during the entire trilogy?  Hell, what did people like most about Mass Effect?  The ability to choose.  Why do you think people didn't like the increased use of autodialogue in ME3 vs the previous 2 games?

Therefore, it is a fact that Synthesis is a violation of everyone's free will.  As we established, free will is a function of our existence.  Therefore, the violation of another's free will by doing something without their consent is really a violation of their very nature/existence.  Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant, since morality is a matter of perspective.  However, we can all agree that when our free will/existence is threatened, we will instinctually defend it.

The Synthesis ending is mired in utopian idealism where now everyone lives in peace all of a sudden.  Organics didn't kill each other because they didn't understand synthetics.  Synthetics didn't kill organics simply because they didn't understand organics, many times they were simply programmed to fight for their organic masters.

You defend Synthesis based on what you think is the "greater good."  However, when you do something for that, then you are discounting the potentially bad outcomes because you've already labeled your choice as "good."  You only chose to trust the Catalyst because you already agreed with what it said to begin with.  Your own sense of morality drove your decision whether you realized it or not.

What if now, with their synthetic enhancements, organics/synthetics are now able to committ atrocities on a much larger scale?  What if, because of this "greater understanding" it actually creates a centralized consensus where everyone is controlled by a single person/entity?  Would you then say it was "better"?  Would you have made the same choice, knowing that the outcome would be bad?  

The Catalyst even admitted that they tried a form of "synthesis" before, and it failed miserably.  Both you and the Catalyst had no way of knowing it would work.  Therefore, how could the Catalyst tell you the truth when all truth is based on fact?  It was never done before, therefore the Catalyst had absolutely no facts to support its claim.  Did it lie?  No.  But it cannot tell you the truth either.  However, like I mentioned before, you already agreed with its point of view to begin with, therefore you see it as telling you the truth, when really, you just heard what you wanted to hear.  You had an emotional/moral response and now are trying to justify it with your own form of logic.  Human Nature 101.

[Auintus]

Zavox wrote...
I'm also going to leave this entire discussion at that. I see no end to a discussion on the merits of each choice if you hold the value you seem to convey. If you really belief that changing someones body without their consent is perfectly fine, based on solely your own opinion of it being better, the discussion with me will end here. 

Oh, okay then. Bye bye.

[AlanC9]

Zavox wrote...
Yes, Magellan wasn't gambling. Sure he took a risk, but a calculated/educated one, that eventually proved to be somewhat flawed at points. You can't however say he just went and sailed the world in the hopes of finding a western route. It was already postulated that there was one if you travel further south than the Rio de la Plata. Vasco Nunez de Balboa already had seen that there was a sea or ocean on the east coast, on which Magellan based his exploration.

Sounds like this is just semantics. "Gambling" = uncalculated risk? If you say so. News to professional poker players and blackjack guys, but it's not important. 

Nothing is headcannon about the endings yet, we have yet to see which of the endings gets chosen as headcannon, if at all. I still hold a small glimmer of hope that the IT theory (or something similar) eventually holds truth.

IT? Maybe; I'm still a little worried about that one myself. But do you really think Bio could leave the EC in place and say that they were just fooling and the geth are actually still around in the Destroy ending even though they don't show up in the slides? Really?

Right now there is no IT DLC. Pretending that the geth are still alive in Destroy as the game stands today... headcanon's the most flattering word for it.

I didn't mean it literally. I've mentioned before that as soon as the Catalyst said he created the reapers and was it's leader, I would've asked Hackett to blow the area Shepard and the Catalyst are in sky-high. Preferably giving me a chance to escape, but if unable I would sacrifice.

Sure, we won't know whether it may have worked, but it sure as hell seems more plausible than the current space magic endings do, by either shooting a tube, grabbing two killer poles or jumping into a beam of disintegrating light.

Wasn't reading all of the earlier posts; sorry I took that literally.

I wouldn't have minded another fail ending. Might have been even worse than Refuse, since without the Catalyst who says the Reapers keep doing the cycles? The game could have used a total Reaper victory ending.

Assuming Hackett's fleet can even breach the Citadel before losing the battle, of course.

[Auintus]

duranii wrote...
Flawed logic.  Your definition of "better" is not the same as someone else's.  Doing things to people without their consent is a violation of someone's free will.  This is not even a question of morality, since the operative phrase is "without their consent."  Therefore, it is factually established that violating someone's free will is by doing something without their consent.  Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant.  Since no one can see the future, there is absolutely no way to judge whether something is "better" or "worse."  Free will is not a question of morality, it is what defines our very existence.  People do things of their own free will to either harm or benefit others, therefore, it is not a function of morality.  It simply is.

The Reapers believed they were doing something "better" for organics by "ascending" them every 50,000 years.  However, you had no problem fighting them and killing them, did you?  What have you been fighting for during the entire trilogy?  Hell, what did people like most about Mass Effect?  The ability to choose.  Why do you think people didn't like the increased use of autodialogue in ME3 vs the previous 2 games?

Therefore, it is a fact that Synthesis is a violation of everyone's free will.  As we established, free will is a function of our existence.  Therefore, the violation of another's free will by doing something without their consent is really a violation of their very nature/existence.  Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant, since morality is a matter of perspective.  However, we can all agree that when our free will/existence is threatened, we will instinctually defend it.

The Synthesis ending is mired in utopian idealism where now everyone lives in peace all of a sudden.  Organics didn't kill each other because they didn't understand synthetics.  Synthetics didn't kill organics simply because they didn't understand organics, many times they were simply programmed to fight for their organic masters.

You defend Synthesis based on what you think is the "greater good."  However, when you do something for that, then you are discounting the potentially bad outcomes because you've already labeled your choice as "good."  You only chose to trust the Catalyst because you already agreed with what it said to begin with.  Your own sense of morality drove your decision whether you realized it or not.

What if now, with their synthetic enhancements, organics/synthetics are now able to committ atrocities on a much larger scale?  What if, because of this "greater understanding" it actually creates a centralized consensus where everyone is controlled by a single person/entity?  Would you then say it was "better"?  Would you have made the same choice, knowing that the outcome would be bad?  

The Catalyst even admitted that they tried a form of "synthesis" before, and it failed miserably.  Both you and the Catalyst had no way of knowing it would work.  Therefore, how could the Catalyst tell you the truth when all truth is based on fact?  It was never done before, therefore the Catalyst had absolutely no facts to support its claim.  Did it lie?  No.  But it cannot tell you the truth either.  However, like I mentioned before, you already agreed with its point of view to begin with, therefore you see it as telling you the truth, when really, you just heard what you wanted to hear.  You had an emotional/moral response and now are trying to justify it with your own form of logic.  Human Nature 101.

Flawed? I never said anyone would do the same thing in my shoes. I know more than enough people who are opposed to change of any sort. Perhaps someone would have objected had we the time to talk about it, but when push came to shove, I was the one standing at the Crucible. I figured it would be for the best, and what do you know, everyone's perfectly content.

I don't recall the option of willingly becoming a Reaper avatar. That could've been awesome. But that's besides the point. In fighting them and killing them, on Rannoch, I chose the Paragon option, then facepalmed at Shepard's "Whatever species made you is long dead, and now they can rest." The way I see it, Shepard just killed an entire civilization. We attempted to destroy what we did not understand. Once I understood, I understand the Reaper's motivations. Flawed, perhaps, but ultimately well-intentioned.

Are you given the option of going to school? Or is it mandatory? Is it an improvement? I would say it is. People do things they don't want to for their own betterment rather often. I understand Synthesis as no different.

It ends one cause for conflict, not all of them. One step at a time.

I trust the Catalyst because I see no reason not to. But yes, my ideals, my morals drove my decision. I know this. Was there I point that I missed?

None of the information that I had gave any indication that people would be anything more than modified. No evidence of a unified consciousness. Just understanding. Understanding cannot exist without uniqueness, so I consider that concern invalid. You may not, that is where we differ.

He said that a Synthesis forced upon the races failed. Shepard is a representative, he can accept Synthesis. I dunno. By my understanding, the Crucible is a power source, while the Citadel makes the thing function. I am guessing that, having been on the Citadel for the last couple million years, the Catalyst knows what its talking about.
...Was I just told that my argument is wrong due to the original decision being based on morals/emotions?
In a logical world, everyone would just die to spare them the suffering of life. As organic beings, we were not born with purpose. Logically, it follows that we should not exist at all. You can't use logic alone to make decisions because it always rounds down to, "In under a hundred years, I'll die and all that I've accomplished will mean nothing."

[Gixxer6Rdr]

Am I the only one to notice the airlock/door is on the wrong side of the Normandy? Lol

[duranii]

Auintus wrote...

Flawed? I never said anyone would do the same thing in my shoes. I know more than enough people who are opposed to change of any sort. Perhaps someone would have objected had we the time to talk about it, but when push came to shove, I was the one standing at the Crucible. I figured it would be for the best, and what do you know, everyone's perfectly content.

I don't recall the option of willingly becoming a Reaper avatar. That could've been awesome. But that's besides the point. In fighting them and killing them, on Rannoch, I chose the Paragon option, then facepalmed at Shepard's "Whatever species made you is long dead, and now they can rest." The way I see it, Shepard just killed an entire civilization. We attempted to destroy what we did not understand. Once I understood, I understand the Reaper's motivations. Flawed, perhaps, but ultimately well-intentioned.

Are you given the option of going to school? Or is it mandatory? Is it an improvement? I would say it is. People do things they don't want to for their own betterment rather often. I understand Synthesis as no different.

It ends one cause for conflict, not all of them. One step at a time.

I trust the Catalyst because I see no reason not to. But yes, my ideals, my morals drove my decision. I know this. Was there I point that I missed?

None of the information that I had gave any indication that people would be anything more than modified. No evidence of a unified consciousness. Just understanding. Understanding cannot exist without uniqueness, so I consider that concern invalid. You may not, that is where we differ.

He said that a Synthesis forced upon the races failed. Shepard is a representative, he can accept Synthesis. I dunno. By my understanding, the Crucible is a power source, while the Citadel makes the thing function. I am guessing that, having been on the Citadel for the last couple million years, the Catalyst knows what its talking about.
...Was I just told that my argument is wrong due to the original decision being based on morals/emotions?
In a logical world, everyone would just die to spare them the suffering of life. As organic beings, we were not born with purpose. Logically, it follows that we should not exist at all. You can't use logic alone to make decisions because it always rounds down to, "In under a hundred years, I'll die and all that I've accomplished will mean nothing."

You only know people were content because of hindsight.  In reality, if you jumped into that beam and died, you'd have absolutely no way of knowing what the results of your actions were.  So as you stand on the Crucible, again, the question begs:  Do I force this on everyone when they never asked for it?  Especially when it's never done before and the Catalyst said similar attempts failed?  What were the Reapers trying to accomplish the entire time?  Was it not the union of synthetic and organic?

You stated yourself, the Reapers were "well-intentioned" but flawed.  Well, why is that?  I guess it has something to do with the whole thing about "ascending" organics against their will.  Let's say the Reapers didn't just start killing people, but rather, they went to each civilization and said, "Hey, we come in peace.  We'd like to synthesize your DNA and make you both synthetic and organic so that you can reach greater understanding."   In all realism, do you honestly think that a majority of the population would do that?  Look at this country's opposition to cloning human beings, or embryonic stem cells.  You're going to have a "moral majority" that believes in the purity of species.  Knowing this, how can Synthesis ever be justified then?  Just like how the Reapers tried to force it, the Crucible would also do this against everyone's will.  If no one asked for it, how can it possibly not be forced?

You don't necessarily HAVE to go to school for an "improvement."  As Mark Twain said, "Don't let schooling get in the way of your education."  Some of the greatest leaders in history were either dropouts or never went to school.  That's not to say that people who went to school weren't successful, but you can't discount the other side of the coin.

As for my point on morality, you argued against an opposing view on Synthesis with another forum goer here because of their view of morality.  When you have two different opposing moral views, there's never a consensus unless logic can be utilized to show either a consistency in belief, or hypocrisy.  Shepard fought against the Reapers forcing their agenda on organics.  Therefore, logically, Shepard is opposed to things being forced on others against their will.  Synthesis does not ask for anyone's permission, therefore, it is being done against the galaxy's will.  Whether it's for the better or not, it is hypocritical on Shepard's part.  Again, it brings me to my previous point about if the Reapers just simply asked people if they wanted to "synthesize."  If there was a magical survey machine at the Crucible, and the galaxy could vote on whether to be synthesized, do you honestly think that even a small portion of the galaxy would agree to it?  Especially after what they saw the Reapers do to their homes?

The fact of the matter is, Bioware did not fully realize the implications of such an ending, and ended up being poorly thought out.  The neat slide show showing this newfound utopia and understanding is a function of either severe naivete, or just lazy writing.

[Ieldra]

Reorte wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Reorte wrote...

It's doomed to do something horrific if the ethical implications aren't considered.

Not so. How desirable the outcome is is unrelated to the means I must use to achieve it. That's where traditional morality gets things wrong. Synthesis creates a golden age including a krogan cultural renaissance and unmasked quarians at the price of doing something highly questionable. That some people are so determined to attach a bad outcome to Synthesis against a whole five-minute epilogue telling them otherwise is itself a result of the inability to let go of the dogma that doing morally questionable things always results in a bad outcome.

If what the epilogue says clashes with what some of the implications would be, or simply ignores the questions rather than addressing them then it feels like propaganda. People only attach bad outcomes to it because the idea of it raises the questions, some of which seem inevitable. The sheer nonsense of it probably prejudices people against it too. But you are arguing for the "end justifies the means", always a dubious path to go down and certainly not a universal justification.

The question is not why *do* people attach bad consequences to it, but why people *want* to do it. Why not instead take the good parts and build on them? Also, there are few self-evident implications, people imply certain things instead of others because of a predisposition.

There isn't a clash between the epilogue and what is implied. The epilogue paints a very general picture of the future. If it tells you about a krogan cultural renaissance and doesn't tell you that the ruling faction had to raze a city of rebels in the meantime, and probably will have to do it again, then that just means those events are insignificant in the greater scheme of things. If the Synthesis epilogue tells you that in general, people are happy, then that doesn't mean there aren't any unhappy ones but that their number and influence are not significant enough to make it into a five-minute news piece covering two hundred years.

That people keep bringing this up in spite of the obvious explanation is in itself a sign of an anti-Synthesis predisposition. I ask where this disposition comes from.  

As for "the end justifies the means", that's a vulgar representation of consequentialism, suggesting that any means is acceptable for any desirable outcome. That is a false representation. I am a consequentialist to some degree, I would say that there are ends worth crossing a line for. One line but maybe not another, depending on how important, desirable or necessary the end is. Every politician and strategist knows that, they just don't admit it in public. "There is always another way" is a comfortable delusion. Sometimes, there isn't. 

As for trusting the Catalyst, for me it's simply a question of "Well, can it make things any worse?" (although altering every living thing in the galaxy may well be regarded as worse than letting a few trillion get killed now - at least it's only relatively short term).

Some see it that way. That's their prerogative. As I see it, the changes are justifiable if they're good. Many people decrying Synthesis sound like "Nooo.....I didn't choose this, make it go away" after being gifted with 100 additional years of lifespan. Sure, some may genuinely not want that, but then....sorry, the benefits of the many count for more. Also, I get that people are afraid of being implanted with "alien stuff", but given that people aren't bothered in the epilogue, that's not how such things work. Just as the titanium screw I have in my radius, the changes will feel as natural as if people had been born with them after a period of adaptation. Otherwise, "integration with technology" would be a lie. As said above by Auintus and several times by me in my Synthesis thread, the EC highly suggests that *what* you are might be changed, but *who* you are will not. The characters in the epilogue appear very much like themselves.

Don't you think that people might feel very diifferently about a change they've decided to have and one that's been imposed upon them? If synthesis is technically possible then fine, let it be an option for individuals to chose after the Reapers have been dealt with. The fact that no-one seems bothered in the epilogue is part of the faiure I mentioned above. It's simply impossible to believe that lots of people would not be bothered. There's also the issue that's been raised many, many times that if it doesn't change anything at all about who then just how is it supposed to solve the problem the Catalyst claims exists? Also, can you change what someone is without changing who they are? The changes are pretty fundamental.

I guess many conversations would go like this:
A: "Doesn't it bother you that you weren't asked?"
B: "It did, at first. But..you know, *had* they asked, I would've volunteered. So....it doesn't matter."
Also, since Shepard and the Catalyst are dead, nobody knows that there were alternatives, and even should people come to know, they wouldn't know their ultimate outcomes. For most people, this will come as a force of nature that changes everything.  

Yeah, many people would be bothered, but see above: even if it's a billion, that's not significant enough to make it into a five minute news piece covering two hundred years. Not unless a major war results from that disagreement.  

If you could get the consent of enough of the entire galaxy (including all the planets that'll be affected but aren't even known about, including every single intelligent low tech or no tech race, AND demonstrate that the serious ecological concerns are unfounded) then it might be OK. Without then you've not got a leg to stand on unless the alternatives are utterly dreadful (the steralization of the entire galaxy would be about the only unquestionably worse alternative and even the destruction of Refuse wouldn't come remotely close to that). If you want "it would be better for everyone" then you could easily defend a program of enforced steralisation to deal with population levels.

Actually, I am pro-genophage. If a species can't control its own population through voluntary measures and unlimited growth endangers the whole, someone has to do it for them. Yes, this is paternalistic. I don't like the necessity but I won't stick in my head in the sand and do nothing just because I want to avoid doing something unpleasant.

As for consent, in an ideal world we would do that. We are not living in an ideal world, and we are in a far-from-ideal situation. Shepard is the one who decides. By virtue of being the one who made it to the Catalyst chamber, he has earned the right to decide. The future of the galaxy is his to shape. It is a situation where the rules of normal political discourse are suspended. Again, I have serious trouble seeing why people can't accept that. If *you* think *your* Shepard can't shoulder the responsibility for such a great change, that's fine, but don't tell others they can't.

Also, people are raising concerns they have no information about. There is no reason at all to believe that what the Crucible does will unbalance galactic ecology. Why? Because if the Catalyst describes this change as resulting in a viable future, then I have every reason to believe that. If it wanted to drop the equivalent of an ecological anti-matter bomb, it could've done that long ago, and I am not so presumptuous to assume that Shepard is smarter than a billion-year-old AI with a brain consisting of a significant part of the Citadel plus parts of every Reaper. Every concern raised, the Catalyst would have modelled. Apart from the nonsense in parts of the Synthesis exposition - which I put down to excessively bad writing - the Catalyst's logic is right.

[Steelcan]

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

[Chashan]

Also, people are raising concerns they have no information about. There
is no reason at all to believe that what the Crucible does will
unbalance galactic ecology. Why? Because if the Catalyst describes this
change as resulting in a viable future, then I have every reason to
believe that. If it wanted to drop the equivalent of an ecological
anti-matter bomb, it could've done that long ago, and I am not so
presumptuous to assume that Shepard is smarter than a billion-year-old
AI with a brain consisting of a significant part of the Citadel plus
parts of every Reaper. Every concern raised, the Catalyst would have
modelled. Apart from the nonsense in parts of the Synthesis exposition -
which I put down to excessively bad writing - the Catalyst's logic is right.

And I am not blind, deaf and mute enough to ascribe such an attribute to the creature, the way it is portrayed, presented and acts.

The way it does appear on stage, it does not bring the attitude it would need to convey enough authority to convince me that it is actually that, and more. Indeed, resorting to an image as powerless and, in its paradoxy considering what it claims to be, pathetic as the one it maintains in the exchange. This rather suggests that it feels a need to cling to deceptive appearance and manipulation.
That does not mean "(attempted) mind-control" as suggested by others. What it does suggest, however, is an inexplicable weakness on its part.

I have expressed this elsewhere, but truly, the Reaper-leader appearing as a more classic, malevolent character would have worked a deal better, and, far as I am concerned, it would have been very much preferred over what it ended up being.

Modifié par Chashan, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:03 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

LucasShark wrote...

For you're information: I'm visually impared, I COULD NEVER TELL YOU* WHICH PICTURE IS WHICH.

It's okay. No one with 20/20 vision can do it either.

[Auintus]

duranii wrote...
You only know people were content because of hindsight.  In reality, if you jumped into that beam and died, you'd have absolutely no way of knowing what the results of your actions were.  So as you stand on the Crucible, again, the question begs:  Do I force this on everyone when they never asked for it?  Especially when it's never done before and the Catalyst said similar attempts failed?  What were the Reapers trying to accomplish the entire time?  Was it not the union of synthetic and organic?

You stated yourself, the Reapers were "well-intentioned" but flawed.  Well, why is that?  I guess it has something to do with the whole thing about "ascending" organics against their will.  Let's say the Reapers didn't just start killing people, but rather, they went to each civilization and said, "Hey, we come in peace.  We'd like to synthesize your DNA and make you both synthetic and organic so that you can reach greater understanding."   In all realism, do you honestly think that a majority of the population would do that?  Look at this country's opposition to cloning human beings, or embryonic stem cells.  You're going to have a "moral majority" that believes in the purity of species.  Knowing this, how can Synthesis ever be justified then?  Just like how the Reapers tried to force it, the Crucible would also do this against everyone's will.  If no one asked for it, how can it possibly not be forced?

You don't necessarily HAVE to go to school for an "improvement."  As Mark Twain said, "Don't let schooling get in the way of your education."  Some of the greatest leaders in history were either dropouts or never went to school.  That's not to say that people who went to school weren't successful, but you can't discount the other side of the coin.

As for my point on morality, you argued against an opposing view on Synthesis with another forum goer here because of their view of morality.  When you have two different opposing moral views, there's never a consensus unless logic can be utilized to show either a consistency in belief, or hypocrisy.  Shepard fought against the Reapers forcing their agenda on organics.  Therefore, logically, Shepard is opposed to things being forced on others against their will.  Synthesis does not ask for anyone's permission, therefore, it is being done against the galaxy's will.  Whether it's for the better or not, it is hypocritical on Shepard's part.  Again, it brings me to my previous point about if the Reapers just simply asked people if they wanted to "synthesize."  If there was a magical survey machine at the Crucible, and the galaxy could vote on whether to be synthesized, do you honestly think that even a small portion of the galaxy would agree to it?  Especially after what they saw the Reapers do to their homes?

The fact of the matter is, Bioware did not fully realize the implications of such an ending, and ended up being poorly thought out.  The neat slide show showing this newfound utopia and understanding is a function of either severe naivete, or just lazy writing.

The Catalyst said the Reapers tried to force it on everyone. With Shepard as a representative of the races, and the Crucible as a device created by the races, the choice is not made by the Reapers.

They weren't so much flawed as their solution sucked from our side of the table. If you take an outsiders prespective, you can see that they're being preserved. If you look at it from the Reapers side, they are ensuring that all those who are uploaded live much longer than the average human lifespan, the gift of immortality. But if you look at it from the human's side, they are being killed and mutilated and turned into creepy stuff.
...Well, I suppose what's wrong with my view is that I have no problem with stem-cell research or cloning. I'd just ignore the holier-than-thou purists. If you look at the situation objectively, it really is an improvement. The only reason anyone reasonably complains is because they didn't have a choice. They couldn't have. It wasn't in the cards. That doesn't mean an objective individual would have chosen otherwise.

True. School was just an example of something that is forced on people that is usually a good thing.

Not quite. Shepard fought against the extinction of humanity, which was how he saw it at the time. Once the Catalyst explains everything to you, the situation changes. The problem is that people could never view the Reapers toe-to-toe. The damn things are designed to inspire fear. Their horn is apparently engineered to trigger a fear reflex in any major species. That's why the catalyst has to take the form of something familiar, so that Shepard can identify with it. As for asking everyone, it comes to how you word it. Look at Shepard, the tech implanted in him makes him stronger, more durable. Most people wouldn't turn that down. Except the purists, as mentioned earlier.

...Bioware built the world. They determine how it goes. They are essentially God of the Mass Effect universe. If they decide Synthesis results in butterflies and rainbows, then Synthesis results in butterflies and rainbows.

May I add that, in considering your arguments and forming my side of the discussion, I have come to better understand my own view of the ending? I would like to thank you for that. Usually debates result in mindless bickering, but you've helped me better understand my side, as well as yours.

[Ieldra]

Chashan wrote...

Also, people are raising concerns they have no information about. There is no reason at all to believe that what the Crucible does will unbalance galactic ecology. Why? Because if the Catalyst describes this change as resulting in a viable future, then I have every reason to believe that. If it wanted to drop the equivalent of an ecological anti-matter bomb, it could've done that long ago, and I am not so presumptuous to assume that Shepard is smarter than a billion-year-old AI with a brain consisting of a significant part of the Citadel plus parts of every Reaper. Every concern raised, the Catalyst would have modelled. Apart from the nonsense in parts of the Synthesis exposition -
which I put down to excessively bad writing - the Catalyst's logic is right.

And I am not blind, deaf and mute enough to ascribe such an attribute to the creature, the way it is portrayed, presented and acts.

The way it does appear on stage, it does not bring the attitude it would need to convey enough authority to convince me that it is actually that, and more. Indeed, resorting to an image as powerless and, in its paradoxy considering what it claims to be, pathetic as the one it maintains in the exchange. This rather suggests that it feels a need to cling to deceptive appearance and manipulation.
That does not mean "(attempted) mind-control" as suggested by others. What it does suggest, however, is an inexplicable weakness on its part.

I have expressed this elsewhere, but truly, the Reaper-leader appearing as a more classic, malevolent character would have worked a deal better, and, far as I am concerned, it would have been very much preferred over what it ended up being.

I don't know. To me it was obvious from the first second of the encounter what the Catalyst was supposed to represent. The setup made it completely clear, which means that the admittedly excessively bad presentation wasn't enough to convince me otherwise, because it pushed me out of the world, saying "this writer is incompetent and unable to convey this" instead of "this character makes no sense and can't be believed".

I agree with your last statement: using the child as the Catalyst's avatar was a bad choice. It makes it easier to dismiss everything it says instead of thinking about how it could make sense.