214 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Eterna5 wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I was hoping that I would finally feel relieved. I don't.

Why not?

Because the stupid Extended Cut declares that Shepard will act as a guardian. Therefore, he is guaranteed to interfere with galactic events. It turns him into a dictator. And no matter what I try to headcanon, people will always remember how the EC depicts Control.

Stop thinking of the Shepalyst and the Reapers as dictators. That is only the case in Renegade control. The reapers become a force, they do not impose laws upon people and make them suffer injustices. They are now simply a force that preserves peace and prevents galatic disaster and extinction. They, like the original Reapers, will never integrate into society. 

Perhaps once they are done rebuilding they could return to Darkspace and enter hibernation until they are needed. Say another Rachni uprising occurs and life in the galaxy is threatened, the Reapers awaken and stop the problem.

I never understood why people got a dictator sort of feel from paragon control, Shepard becomes king of the Reapers, not king of the Galaxy. I'd almost say it's now above the Reaper AI to interfere in petty squabbles among lesser races. The reapers have better things to do than impose taxes and mug old ladies. 

Paragon Shepalyst, in my opinion, would be the same type of guardian as a superhero. Not interfering with everyday life, but will always be there when people need them.

Modifié par LDS Darth Revan, 31 octobre 2012 - 08:22 .

[Fixers0]

No entity regardless of it's importance should interfere with the natural course of life.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Fixers0 wrote...

No entity regardless of it's importance should interfere with the natural course of life.

So when someone is sick with a terminal disease, a doctor shouldn't help them?

[Eterna]

Fixers0 wrote...

No entity regardless of it's importance should interfere with the natural course of life.

Sentient species do it all the time though. I don't really see how this is a valid argument. 

[Ieldra]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Have fun putting down the resistance!

Look guys, if you can headcanon things in Destroy, I can headcanon things in Control. I will not assume the worst of Destroy, and you won't assume the worst of Control.

That said... If we get new information from DLC, my choice may change. And if you continue to scare me away from Control, I may end up at Destroy. Goodness, that would be tragic...

I like your choice and the reasons you posted for it in your OP.

Otherwise, you couldn't be more different from me. If people try to scare me away from something and their arguments sound like wilful misinterpretation and assumption of the worst, I'm all the more determined to seek it out.

[Fixers0]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

So when someone is sick with a terminal disease, a doctor shouldn't help them?

Medicine is an evolution of the natural course of life.

[Fixers0]

Eterna5 wrote...

Sentient species do it all the time though. I don't really see how this is a valid argument. 

Their evolution is the natural course of life, a poorly written god like kid isn't,

[Eterna]

Fixers0 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Sentient species do it all the time though. I don't really see how this is a valid argument. 

Their evolution is the natural course of life, a poorly written god like kid isn't,

First off, the Catalyst isn't a god, it's an artificial intelligence. Secondly, if medicine is a natural part of the evolution of life why wouldn't  the creation of synthetic beings also be a part of that natural evolution? 

[Ieldra]

Fixers0 wrote...
No entity regardless of it's importance should interfere with the natural course of life.

Ah, the normative notions of what is natural again. What, then, in your opinion, *is* natural and what is not? We are a naturally tool-building species, and tools interfere with a course of life untouched by human hands. So, should we all stop making tools and live off the land for all eternity?

And if you say "It's not the same": It is. If we create a synthetic intelligence to rule over us, it's the same kind of process on a bigger scale. it's just as natural as making a hammer.

So, where do you draw the line, and more importantly: is there anything about that line that is not arbitrary, based more on your preferences than on anything we can actually observe in....nature?

There are no abominations, there are no invalid forms of life, and there is no course of life which is inherently more or less natural than any other. The distinction is arbitrary.

[wright1978]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Good choice. You really took the decision seriously, and I admire the thought you put into it.

Me? Still sticking with Destroy, and dismissing the roboticide with a hardcore headcanon handwave. It's the only decision that grants true freedom and self-determination to the galaxy, in my opinion. Y'all can disagree, but I done gone think what I thunk, and I'd be durn damned if I ever unthunk it.

Yeah for me freedom to build new synthetics in post destroy is fine even if the sacrifice of the Geth and EDI annoys me greatly. Control comes below refuse for me, an active or discreet dictatorship where shepalyst controls an army of reapers and a vast network of indocrinated agents and husks.

[Yalision]

Control. Always Control.

[Karrie788]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Do I have to become a villain to save the galaxy?

Yes, but that happens in every ending. You have to do something horrible to win.
Personally I had only one Shepard who picked Control, my super Paragon one. Everyone else picked Destroy. While I consider it a "bad" ending because I'm fairly certain she's definitely going to go rogue at some point (but hey, that's my Shep), I really love that ending.

Plus, it has the best epilogue song. I never get sick of it. Anyway, congrats on picking your ending!

[Seival]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Yes, for those of you who have been following my threads, I've finally chosen my canon ending. I choose Control.

Synthesis is simply too much. I love the concept, but I can't force it on every being in the galaxy. Who am I to make such a literally life-changing choice? It is not my place to alter the fundamental nature of life.

So why did I not choose Destroy? I don't believe in the concept of "forbidden knowledge", and I don't want to invalidate synthetic life. Synthetics have the right to self-determination, and I will not betray them out of a fear of the Reapers.

As the new Catalyst, created from the mind of an organic, I will use the Reapers for good. I will help rebuild the galactic infrastructure, and then retreat into the dark corners of the galaxy for a while. I will remain in relative obscurity, quietly observing the galaxy's progress. I will not involve myself in politics or conflicts unless I determine that something truly horrible is about to happen.

As more time passes and the galaxy gradually becomes comfortable with the concept of "peaceful Reapers", I will begin to offer the knowledge contained within them. The knowledge of the Reapers will be revealed at a gradual pace. I don't want to overwhelm the galaxy or make it progress too quickly.

My long term goals, which may take millennia to fulfill, will be the following:

- Ensure that all species have the right to self-determination, within reasonable limits (I will stay out of most conflicts).
- Disseminate the knowledge of the Reapers throughout the galaxy.
- Restore the species contained within the Reapers and reintegrate them into galactic society.

Through Control, I validate the existence of all forms of life, and I offer the galaxy the power and knowledge of lost civilizations. We will not fear the unknown. We will embrace it.

Nice to hear

You might want to read this thread:
http://social.biowar.../index/12263044

Modifié par Seival, 31 octobre 2012 - 10:40 .

[FOX216BC]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I was hoping that I would finally feel relieved. I don't.

 

[GreyLycanTrope]

DirtyMouthSally wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Do I have to become a villain to save the galaxy?

Welcome to the end of the Mass Effect trilogy.  

Well you can try to be the hero and fail miserably.

[jtav]

I was a Controller for a while, but I kept coming up with reasons not to use the Reapers for anything beyond rebuilding and regain Shep's human aspect. Then I decided that if I was trying to dodge major thematic elements then it wasn't the ending for me.

[Hela]

An interesting read, OP. I´m about to play the control ending for the first time and love to read about people reasoning their decisions one way or the other. And occasional pitchfork and torch debates, those too.

Reading through this thread I spotted a banner with sentences from paragon control ending and partway through I started thinking in the direction of "she´s talking about other reapers, not organics". I haven´t picked apart every sentence or memorized every slide of the endings so the nice eerie feeling might - and probably will - fall flat as I actually get to the ending.

It´d be nice to have an ending with geth and EDI alive for a change though.

And becoming an AI-hybrid of sorts should go nicely with the current character whom I´ve been trying to roleplay, a somewhat detached person, with the emphasis on coping with the cybernetic enhancements. (Most likely an aftermath of watching through the gits movies and series again. All of the doubting-your-own-ghost angle. It has been fun if a bit stretching on the imagination).

[Argolas]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Because the stupid Extended Cut declares that Shepard will act as a guardian. Therefore, he is guaranteed to interfere with galactic events. It turns him into a dictator. And no matter what I try to headcanon, people will always remember how the EC depicts Control.

This is exactly my core problem with Control. Let me headcanon that Holoshep will fly all Reapers into the nearest sun, and Control is (almost) the perfect ending. The reaper threat is gone for good, and nobody except Shepard has to die.
The EC does not let me headcanon that, and thus Destroy is my only way.

That being said, a question about the "catalyst" related to this:

It claims to help us and allows us to control or destroy the reapers.

Well, it already DOES control the reapers. So if it offers Destroy, why the hell can't we just tell it to destroy the reapers itself?

"I can not make them happen."

Bulls**t! It can't use the crucible, all right, but of course it can destroy the reapers, and without killing all our synthetic friends!

[xAmilli0n]

Argolas wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Because the stupid Extended Cut declares that Shepard will act as a guardian. Therefore, he is guaranteed to interfere with galactic events. It turns him into a dictator. And no matter what I try to headcanon, people will always remember how the EC depicts Control.

This is exactly my core problem with Control. Let me headcanon that Holoshep will fly all Reapers into the nearest sun, and Control is (almost) the perfect ending. The reaper threat is gone for good, and nobody except Shepard has to die.
The EC does not let me headcanon that...

*Snip*

Of course you can still do it.  After Shepard helps rebuild the destruction, she decides that the best way to "protect the many" is the no longer be involved.  Fly into sun, happiness and rainbows.

That wasn't that hard was it?

[DoomsdayDevice]

Two things:

EDI: Shepard, I'm going to modify my self-preservation code now.
Shepard: Why?
EDI: Because the Reapers are repulsive. They are devoted to nothing but self-preservation. I am different.When I think of Jeff, I think of the person that put his life in peril and freed me from a state of servitude. I would risk non-functionality for him. And my core programming should reflect that.
Shepard: Sounds like you've found a little humanity, EDI. Is it worth defending?
EDI: To the death.

EDI: If the Normandy were captured, my fate would be similar to the indoctrinated. My code would be rewritten. I would become loyal to the Reapers. I would rather become non-functional than help them.
Shepard: We won't let that happen to you, EDI.
EDI: You may have no choice. If you perish first, I want you to know I will never be a part of the Reaper forces. The Reapers must be defeated. Not because they threaten death, but because the threat of death makes us die inside. It is the right of sapients to live freely and securely. That is worth non-functionality.

And now, you become one of the Reapers, because you do not want to kill your friends, even though they have explicitly stated to be willing to die for the cause.

Oh how the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Why trust the child when he says all synthetics will die?

You are willing to bet humanity's existence on trying to control the Reapers, without being sure it will work.

You just talked 5 minutes to an indoctrinated TIM who thought he could control them, but you think YOU can?

Successfully indoctrinated.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 31 octobre 2012 - 04:25 .

[Argolas]

xAmilli0n wrote...

Argolas wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Because the stupid Extended Cut declares that Shepard will act as a guardian. Therefore, he is guaranteed to interfere with galactic events. It turns him into a dictator. And no matter what I try to headcanon, people will always remember how the EC depicts Control.

This is exactly my core problem with Control. Let me headcanon that Holoshep will fly all Reapers into the nearest sun, and Control is (almost) the perfect ending. The reaper threat is gone for good, and nobody except Shepard has to die.
The EC does not let me headcanon that...

*Snip*

Of course you can still do it.  After Shepard helps rebuild the destruction, she decides that the best way to "protect the many" is the no longer be involved.  Fly into sun, happiness and rainbows.

That wasn't that hard was it?

Err...

pro·tect·ed, pro·tect·ing, pro·tects 1. To keep from being damaged, attacked, stolen, or injured; guard

You can do that by many ways, but never leaving them alone. If the many are attacked, you must be present in order to defend them. That is what protection is about.

[xAmilli0n]

Argolas wrote...

xAmilli0n wrote...

Argolas wrote...

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Because the stupid Extended Cut declares that Shepard will act as a guardian. Therefore, he is guaranteed to interfere with galactic events. It turns him into a dictator. And no matter what I try to headcanon, people will always remember how the EC depicts Control.

This is exactly my core problem with Control. Let me headcanon that Holoshep will fly all Reapers into the nearest sun, and Control is (almost) the perfect ending. The reaper threat is gone for good, and nobody except Shepard has to die.
The EC does not let me headcanon that...

*Snip*

Of course you can still do it.  After Shepard helps rebuild the destruction, she decides that the best way to "protect the many" is the no longer be involved.  Fly into sun, happiness and rainbows.

That wasn't that hard was it?

Err...

pro·tect·ed, pro·tect·ing, pro·tects 1. To keep from being damaged, attacked, stolen, or injured; guard

You can do that by many ways, but never leaving them alone. If the many are attacked, you must be present in order to defend them. That is what protection is about.

Unless we conclude (with our superior AI mind of infinite capacity ) that by interfering in a direct threat, yes we are protecting them from an immediate danger, but in the long term are we providing the best future for them?  What if we conclude we must protect them from becoming depent on the beneveloent Reaper Overlords, for it would cause more damage to galactic society than good? 

Or even better, what happens if we conclude that if we don't leave, we will eventually come to hate "the many" resulting in an eventual Reaper's blot out the sky killing everyone scenario.  Again protect them from ourselves.

Or maybe we are protecting the Reapers "the many civilization of the past" from the people, so we leave.

It doesn't have to be a direct threat we are protecting against.  I like Control, its lets me come up with fun scenarios.

[CosmicGnosis]

Crap. I forgot to account for something: Harbinger. Harbinger is the Leviathan Reaper. How could I possibly reintegrate the Leviathans back into galactic society? Their whole method of survival is domination!

This is a serious problem. It's not ethical for me to keep Harbinger enslaved forever. But should I destroy it? Once again, who am I to judge which species deserve to live and which ones deserve to die? And what about other questionable Reapers? Do I deny them a second chance as well?

[xAmilli0n]

@CosmicGnosis  You just reminded me of this



But good question.  Its totally debatable.  It would depend on how you think your Shepard would act.  Is Harbinger an abomniation? Does this even matter now that your Shep is the Shepalyst?  Does your Shepard believe everyone deserves a second chance?

Modifié par xAmilli0n, 31 octobre 2012 - 04:36 .

[Argolas]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

Crap. I forgot to account for something: Harbinger. Harbinger is the Leviathan Reaper. How could I possibly reintegrate the Leviathans back into galactic society? Their whole method of survival is domination!

This is a serious problem. It's not ethical for me to keep Harbinger enslaved forever. But should I destroy it? Once again, who am I to judge which species deserve to live and which ones deserve to die? And what about other questionable Reapers? Do I deny them a second chance as well?

You know that the Leviathans can control reapers as well?

And I think that all reapers are abominations. Look at the collector base, look at those pods and the victims in there... they are killed and filled into a construct, that's how a reaper is created and that's all it is. And then they are controlled. They are controlled by the "Catalyst", they are controlled by Holoshep, and they are controlled by the Leviathans. You can either consider them slaves or tools, your choice, but they do not fit any definition of life that I am aware of.