drayfish wrote...
Obadiah wrote...
drayfish wrote...
...
Having said that, however, and having been subjected to your cartoonish misrepresentation, I would love to hear what it is that you get out of the ending.
Truly.
In your opinion my reading of the ending is entirely lacking. That's cool. I can believe that. So what is it about this deal with the galaxy's greatest mass-murderer that reveals anything to you about the nature of humanity? Of genuine sacrifice?
It is great (and rather easy) to say that moral compromise is in the mix there, but what does it actually do? What was the point of forcing the player to confront such a circumstance, and compel them to sell out their beliefs? Again, nothing is simpler than nodding sagely, and burbling that the ending is 'deep' because it forces us to confront troubling moral quandries... But so what? What is the point of it all? What do we learn, and what do we do with that knowledge?
So far I have heard people speak of this as a test of moral relativity (you yourself claimed it was a great test of what we hold most sacred) - but aside from revealing that players can be willing to bargain away their morality to survive, or which atrocity is least appealing, I don't see what that actually says about ethics except that they are fundamentally malleable, and can be ignored if need be for the purposes of whatever 'greater good' is most pressing at any given moment.
I would (genuinely) love to hear you reveal something more than that, rather than petulently deriding anyone who disagrees with you. ...
Ethics are a set of moral rules that can't be bargained away. They're either adhered to or not. You've previously said that Shepard was justified in making a choice, which means that we players followed ethical rules when making the choice.
1) If one considers the ending options as sacrifices, then the message of the ending is that sacrifices can be committed ethically.
2) If one considers the ending options as atrocities, then the message of the ending is that atrocities can be committed ethically.
3) If one considers the ending options as a mixture of sacrifices and atrocities, then the message of the ending is that there is a difference between the two that must be determined, and that atrocities or sacrifices can be committed ethically.
Just on the face of it, I would say that all three of these conclusions are true. I think pretty much everything else you've described (why each action is an atrocity, the deaths of the Geth, player feeling, etc...) is an attempt to make that truth as unpalatable as possible, which doesn't really change the truth at all.
Thanks for responding (without the insults and pettiness), I appreciate it. I've already been labelled a troll by you and another poster so I will try to make this (my definition of) brief...
So the truth that you believe the game posits, and that players should embrace as meaningful, is that atrocities can be committed ethically?
(And I will say atrocities across the board rather than 'sacrifices', because none of the endings really fit the definition of 'sacrifice' in the self-sacrificial manner we widely know it today - more the antiquated offering-up-an-innocent-victim-to-an-angry-god type sacrifice, and in this context that is an atrocity, since races are wiped out or mutations inflicted.)
So the whole purpose of this epic narrative - the intent of investing players into making the choices that would lead to this end point and driving them with purpose to achieve a noble goal - was to get them to realise that all history (indeed even future history) is built upon the back of horrors that we can ultimately allow ourselves to excuse as 'necessary'?
I will leave out all of the buzz words that you seem to find so problematic, and just say that if this really was the purpose of the game, if Bioware truly did engineer such a circumstance in which to arbitrarily force (and they do not offer a viable alternative in game, so at best it is duress) players to renegotiate the boundaries of their ethics in order to include actions that violate what they would have otherwise considered sacrosanct, then their purpose is purely to muddy the beliefs of those who hold firm to ethics and morality that would argue such violations are egregious.
Those who would have had no ethical concerns about inflicting slaughter or mutation or domination are rewarded; but those who already find such actions deplorable are forced to reconsider their world view, and finally okay such actions as - in your words - 'committed ethically'.
Those who value the rights of others as inviolable, and who have fought throughout the game to respect those beliefs, are punished and told that they were wrong; but those who don't care are rewarded and sacrifice nothing. That says little about 'hope' in the future (or indeed the past) of human kind, and is a rather deplorable message for an artist to send in a tale that claimed (even in the voice of the narrative's antagonist) to be about fighting to build a better future.
This is precisely the issue that I have been raising all along: I find this a cynical vision of (at best) compelled moral relativity, and I am surprised to hear you applaud it so gratefully.
@drayfish
I gave a direct answer to what the possible messages were in the final decision as it was presented (not "intended"), given certain possible interpretations of events, and I said in my judgement they are all true.
Neither you nor anyone else has sought to dispute the truth of these messages... yet.
Since I don't see the endings as atrocities, but as sacrifices, I don't find the message in the game cynical at all. I find "Sacrifices can be committed ethically" realist. Though I didn't applaud the ending in my original post, I will now because I found the ending deeply thought-provoking. In fact, I find discussing it (when I'm not stuck in an endless yes/no loop with someone) deeply thought-provoking.
I didn't say whether the ending was engineered or not, since you previously stipulated that such messages can be unintentional and accidental.
So, I believe your points are something like:
1) "Atrocities can be committed ethically" is a cynical vision - ?
2) If Bioware intentionally engineered the ending with the above specific message(1) then:
2a) That rewards those with no morals qualms - TRUE
2b) That punishes those who hold the commitment of atrocities as inexcusable inherent crime - TRUE (see 2d)
2c) That forces players to re-negotiate the boundaries of their ethics - FALSE
2d) Their purpose is to muddy the beliefs of those who hold to ethics and morality that state such violations are egregious - TRUE and ?
I say (1) is questionable given this definition of "cynical" on google: Believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity. "Self-interest" is a fairly nebulous term (does it mean the individual, those the individual cares about). Since Shepard is dead in three of the four options the narrow definition of self-interest does not seem to apply. I think if you define the terms of "cynical" that you are using the point would be easier to judge.
I say (2c) is false given the counterexample of (2a), and another group not mentioned: people who already believed "Atrocities can be committed ethically". Perhaps both of these groups are the same?
As for (2a) is a game developer really supposed to tailor it's moral message to not reinforce or reward the beliefs of people with no moral qualms? Honestly, I'm going to have to admit to an eye-roll on that one and move on.
I say (2d) is true, however, since you have not disputed that "Atrocities can be committed ethically", this seems like a false set of ethics that the player held. Also the ? is there only because of the word "muddy" which implies further intention. It could be an attempt at propaganda to impose their beliefs. It might be there to instill further discussion, though I know you, and others that feel their beliefs muddied, do not believe that.
Now, as far as I can tell the problem with the whole of section 2 is obvious, these points are contingent on the premise of Bioware intentionally engineering the ending with the specific message of (1). Is that something you believe?
So, this was an ethics thread, what are we discussing?
1) Intentions of the game developer? That kind of speculation will likely get the thread locked.
2) Is it a true statement that "atrocities can be committed ethically"? Hmmm, again, extended discussion of this in the abstract will likely get the thread locked.
3) Are Synthesis, Control, Destroy, and Refuse actions that Shepard can ethically select from (seems like everyone agrees that is a "yes")
4) Were Synthesis, Control, Destroy, and Refuse an ethical selection of options from the developer? Not sure how to discuss that further given it is contingent on the message the devs intended and the message the player perceived. Or perhaps it is not? Could be unethical given all possible options of both messages?
[EDITED]
Modifié par Obadiah, 03 novembre 2012 - 04:00 .
Retour en haut
