530 réponses à ce sujet

[Estelindis]

dreman9999 wrote...

1...What? You don't think a renagade would not consider the choices on hand to be evil. I think you need to look more on to the concepts of morality of renagade and paragon more and how relative each morality can be to other renagade and paragon moralities. Renagades and paragons don't see things one way...I have 3 of each I can vouch for on how differently they see things.

I acknowledge that there are many different possibilities to paragon and renegade, but a fundamental value underpinning the renegade perspective is that some moral sacrifices, even serious ones, are acceptable to achieve one's goals.  Generally speaking, paragon tries to preserve what it's fighting for by using methods that are compatible with the idea of the good society that it wants to protect.

dreman9999 wrote...
How the ending choices can be seen is based on the person. The concept of good and evil are relative...Even from paragon to paragon. At most we can say is that thay are immoral.

Again, we get back to you stating, in an absolute way, that good and evil are relfative... without acknowledging the fundamental self-contradiciton of such an enterprise.

dreman9999 wrote...
Added it's up to use to consider the value of the argument that have been given. Saren and Tim had different reason for wanting to pick the choice that is their means to their end. Just because choice doesnto mean you inheritly agree with them or doing so forthe same reason.The relivence of TIm and Seran points is up tot he person.

They had different reasons but they both made the same mistake - a mistake Shepard would be wise to avoid.

dreman9999 wrote...
Also, I'm not arguing for ends vs means. I'm just pointing out you facing an issue of your morality vs reality. That the universe does not bend to your morality. I'm not say to have to do what you have to do to get to the result you want .Just that you have toconsiderthe fact that you have the face the reality of the situation on hand and consequences that will accure beased on you reaction because ofthe situation on hand.

The thing is, Mass Effect is not reality as such (of course!), it's just a secondary creation.  The ending did not have to be written that way; it was the writers' choice.  In writing it thus, a certain realtiy was shaped for the world of the game.  I argue that it is an ugly reality out of keeping with the theme of the series up to that point, where you cannot be truly heroic at the end, you can only be a villain - or maybe the tool of a villain.

I think that there should have been another way.  In real life, some of the worst moral failures come when people don't examine all the options that they really have and get locked down into two bad choices, or even think they have no choice at all!  Bioware shouldn't have written Shepard at the end as being a prisoner of the Reaper world view but as being able to offer her or his own reality as a counterpoint and show that her or his morality could prevail.

2.Not that I added "interacting" to may point as well.You have to consider why the catalyst is bothering with Shepard when it can clearly win.

Interacting how?  As I stated already, Shepard is in such a state by the end of ME3 that she can't know if she's indoctrinated, if what she's seeing is an interior vision or if it's real.  On the contrary, you are operating from a point of view outside Shepard that "knows" that the Catalyst is real and is interacting with Shepard in the way that the game seems on the surface to present it.  We're starting at two different positions here, so we really can't have an argument; our points just pass each other by.

3. But that is relivent. Figuring out why it thinks that way helps you find a way to solve itand makes sure it does not happen agein.

So if the Catalyst was programmed to solve the organic-synthetic "problem" by its makers, I guess that means we shouldn't create any all-powerful AIs to solve the organic synthetic "problem" in the future!  Oh, wait, I already said that I view such a "problem" as nonsense and see no need to solve it!  I guess there was no need to analyse that at all.  :-p

[dreman9999]

Estelindis wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1...What? You don't think a renagade would not consider the choices on hand to be evil. I think you need to look more on to the concepts of morality of renagade and paragon more and how relative each morality can be to other renagade and paragon moralities. Renagades and paragons don't see things one way...I have 3 of each I can vouch for on how differently they see things.

I acknowledge that there are many different possibilities to paragon and renegade, but a fundamental value underpinning the renegade perspective is that some moral sacrifices, even serious ones, are acceptable to achieve one's goals.  Generally speaking, paragon tries to preserve what it's fighting for by using methods that are compatible with the idea of the good society that it wants to protect.

dreman9999 wrote...
How the ending choices can be seen is based on the person. The concept of good and evil are relative...Even from paragon to paragon. At most we can say is that thay are immoral.

Again, we get back to you stating, in an absolute way, that good and evil are relfative... without acknowledging the fundamental self-contradiciton of such an enterprise.

dreman9999 wrote...
Added it's up to use to consider the value of the argument that have been given. Saren and Tim had different reason for wanting to pick the choice that is their means to their end. Just because choice doesnto mean you inheritly agree with them or doing so forthe same reason.The relivence of TIm and Seran points is up tot he person.

They had different reasons but they both made the same mistake - a mistake Shepard would be wise to avoid.

dreman9999 wrote...
Also, I'm not arguing for ends vs means. I'm just pointing out you facing an issue of your morality vs reality. That the universe does not bend to your morality. I'm not say to have to do what you have to do to get to the result you want .Just that you have toconsiderthe fact that you have the face the reality of the situation on hand and consequences that will accure beased on you reaction because ofthe situation on hand.

The thing is, Mass Effect is not reality as such (of course!), it's just a secondary creation.  The ending did not have to be written that way; it was the writers' choice.  In writing it thus, a certain realtiy was shaped for the world of the game.  I argue that it is an ugly reality out of keeping with the theme of the series up to that point, where you cannot be truly heroic at the end, you can only be a villain - or maybe the tool of a villain.

I think that there should have been another way.  In real life, some of the worst moral failures come when people don't examine all the options that they really have and get locked down into two bad choices, or even think they have no choice at all!  Bioware shouldn't have written Shepard at the end as being a prisoner of the Reaper world view but as being able to offer her or his own reality as a counterpoint and show that her or his morality could prevail.

2.Not that I added "interacting" to may point as well.You have to consider why the catalyst is bothering with Shepard when it can clearly win.

Interacting how?  As I stated already, Shepard is in such a state by the end of ME3 that she can't know if she's indoctrinated, if what she's seeing is an interior vision or if it's real.  On the contrary, you are operating from a point of view outside Shepard that "knows" that the Catalyst is real and is interacting with Shepard in the way that the game seems on the surface to present it.  We're starting at two different positions here, so we really can't have an argument; our points just pass each other by.

3. But that is relivent. Figuring out why it thinks that way helps you find a way to solve itand makes sure it does not happen agein.

So if the Catalyst was programmed to solve the organic-synthetic "problem" by its makers, I guess that means we shouldn't create any all-powerful AIs to solve the organic synthetic "problem" in the future!  Oh, wait, I already said that I view such a "problem" as nonsense and see no need to solve it!  I guess there was no need to analyse that at all.  :-p

1. Paragons also see that some moral sacrifices, even serious ones, are acceptable to achieve one's goals. Paragon(Pure) just try to go the lenghts to make it a last option. As a Paragon, you have been sacrificing people and morals since ME1 as a last option.
Even with paragons the conceptis relative.

2.Saran's and TIM's mistake was extreme interaction with reapers and reaper tech. 

3. Interacting via communication. The catalsy don't not need to give Shepard the time of day. It already won the second thecrucible did not work. It did not need to try talk or indoctrinated Shepard to win.
4.What happen with the catalyst is something that can happen with any AI we make. Remeber, the problem with the conflict with organics and synthetics happen beforethe catalyst was made. I'll let you guess the awnser agein.

[Obadiah]

drayfish wrote...
...
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.
...

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.

Modifié par Obadiah, 02 novembre 2012 - 02:24 .

[Davik Kang]

I am ashamed to admit I never even considered the idea that Drayfish is a troll until it was pointed out. I was under the impression that s/he actually had a key idea behind her claims which I was misunderstanding.

But this thread is yet another difficult discussion which has been turned into a pointless circular argument by the unwillingness of certain posters to actually tackle the problems presented point by point. Instead it is filled with cursory half-answers, followed by entire paragraphs of emotive language which merely repeat all the original points with no new rationale.

It is amazing how many posters in this thread are wilfully overlooking the fact that Destroy is anti-Catalyst in nature. To pick Destroy is to assert your belief that synthetics and organics can coexist. If they couldn't, you would be dooming the galaxy to extinction.

The argument with Drayfish started because s/he said that the game preached a racist, pro-genocide message. S/he then claimed that s/he did not believe this was not the writers' intention, but more an accident due to a failure on the writers' part to follow their own narrative on the sanctity of sapient life. When I asked him/her to explain that position, the response was "I have never claimed to know the writers' minds". The response is plain childish. Do I have to say "In your opinion" at the beginning of every question I pose that is not logically deducible?

To some it may be a relief, many others probably couldn't care less, but I'm out. Enjoy the cycles people.

[Reorte]

Fandango9641 wrote...

No, no that won’t do at all. Destroy literally necessitates genocide and empowers the ethically challenged here to justify that particular choice in terms of undermining the value of synthetic life. Less life affirmingly wonderful than unspeakably vile wouldn’t you say?

I do wish people here would learn what genocide actually is.

[AlanC9]

yukon fire wrote...
Not really as everything is forced on this principle, how advanced can half organic half synthetic life be when the they believe in this failed premise beyond everything.

This doesn't make much sense. What premise, and who's believing it?

Conflict and the ability to resolve it is the core principle of all life, how did Bioware forget this? It is the basis of every story, for the starbrat to say that conflict between two groups of people is unresolvable, despite the fact that you have already resolved it on both a personal level, between Legion and Tali, and on a societal level, between the Quarians and the Geth. just shows that the entire reason for any of the choices is crap. That is not a story of sacrifice thats a story of submission, and that's just Bioware being....something that I can in no way post in a public forum.    

The starbrat's wrong about that. But his beliefs aren't relevant to Shepard. Why are they relevant to you?

[AlanC9]

drayfish wrote...

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.

Is the game really  saying something about ethics? It's not like it's a big surprise to anyone that ethical systems are fundamentally contingent -- doesn't every undergraduate play a few rounds of baiting Kantians at some point? (Until everyone in your year realizes that that game's unbalanced, of course).

[Iakus]

Obadiah wrote...

drayfish wrote...
...
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.
...

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.

I don't find the endings to be sacrifices.  Sacrifices imply having an option to not sacrifice.  And Bioware put in a very blunt "Rocks Fall" ending if you choose not to make that sacrifice.  That['s not voluntary, that's duress.

 
Atrocity is a much better word for it.  But again these are atrocities committed under duressWhere are the ethics when the options are "You die and do something horrible to the galaxy" and "You die and take the entire galaxy with you?"  THis is why I compare teh ending chocie to the Saw movies.  It's just a bunch of bloody, psychotic chocies wrapped in a thin veneer of "chocie" and "what do you value?"  

Shepard's being jerked around by a bloody-minded manipulator.  And I'm not tlaking about the Catalyst. 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Okay so we've dispensed with Control via the worst case scenario since it really does matter in that case.

Synthesis is a rewrite. It changes who you are. You are no longer you. You may think you are but you are not. The ending is a bunch of crap. Destroy leaves us committing genocide. Jack sums it up quite well here.

http://youtu.be/X_QmG57VwZs?t=1m14s

Bioware wanted endless discussion and speculations from everyone. They got it. They proved one thing. Write a crappy ending that gives no closure and leaves the player making morally bankrupt choices just to end a game and discussion will rage for months.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Is the game really  saying something about ethics? It's not like it's a big surprise to anyone that ethical systems are fundamentally contingent -- doesn't every undergraduate play a few rounds of baiting Kantians at some point? (Until everyone in your year realizes that that game's unbalanced, of course).

That the game fails to give the full consequences of each solution due reverence makes a very strong statement I think. Why did the slaughtered Geth not get a EC slide for example?

What statement would that be?

Though I agree there should have been such a slide, if only to correct people who are headcanoning that the geth don't die in Destroy.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Is the game really  saying something about ethics? It's not like it's a big surprise to anyone that ethical systems are fundamentally contingent -- doesn't every undergraduate play a few rounds of baiting Kantians at some point? (Until everyone in your year realizes that that game's unbalanced, of course).

That the game fails to give the full consequences of each solution due reverence makes a very strong statement I think. Why did the slaughtered Geth not get a EC slide for example?

What statement would that be?

Though I agree there should have been such a slide, if only to correct people who are headcanoning that the geth don't die in Destroy.

Bioware writing team is copping out on making hard choices with the crappy ending they wrote. Once again, like with the Reapers, they wrote themselves into a corner. They don't want to show dead geth because it might step on someone's head canon.

Before they changed the forum, and I had to re-register, under my former forum name, I'd made a post that had the new catalyst dialogue regarding destroy description before the EC came out almost word for word. They do read the forums.

There is a possibility they might be leaving the door open for some of the geth to have survived.

[ghost9191]

eh they made it . or not . would like a straight answer . be nice to know if my shep did the whole "genocide" thing

[AlanC9]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Bioware writing team is copping out on making hard choices with the crappy ending they wrote. Once again, like with the Reapers, they wrote themselves into a corner. They don't want to show dead geth because it might step on someone's head canon.

Before they changed the forum, and I had to re-register, under my former forum name, I'd made a post that had the new catalyst dialogue regarding destroy description before the EC came out almost word for word. They do read the forums.

There is a possibility they might be leaving the door open for some of the geth to have survived.

Well, I guess if they won't exterminate IT, they might as well leave the "geth survive" folks alone too.

[AlanC9]

Fandango9641 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
What statement would that be?

Dude, the game (and EC in particular) celebrates the virtue of 3 morally 'questionable' acts. Hey, at least you agree with me about the Geth.

So the statement is that using the Crucible produces better results than not using it? 

[Dr_Extrem]

all 4 outcomes are highly questionable.

even refuse is clearly not an option. by refuse, the cycle will go on - the current civilisation will be obliterated and our remaining cities will be destroyed by orbital bombardment to cover the tracks.
shepard can not bet on liaras time capsules, because they can get lost, found too late, destroyed or even missinterpreted. in this case, doing nothing is worse than doing something wrong.

refuse is the continued genocide on all life.


a user mentioned, that controll does not necissarily results in dictatorship. it sadly does. 

the essence is made of the destilled thoughts and memories of shepard but it lacks the emotions that are bound to certain thoughts and memories. shepard had to eat a lot of dirt during his/her entire life. he/she was instumentalized, betrayed and so on. in fact ... if shepards thoughts and memories are the only viewpoint for the new catalyst, civilisation could be in serious problems. at this point, the essence controls the most powerfull army of all times and the ability to manipulate the minds of the living - indoctrination.

shepards essence will not evolve, because the base of operation is made up of the events of 31 years of being alive. the base for its doing will always be the same. in addition, the essence said that it was born through the death of the man/woman it once was. the essence is not shepard anymore and therefore not bound to the standards, we have on shepard.

a paragon shepards essence will protect the weak and threatens who interfere the galactic peace with obliteration. in other words: "do something wrong and i send the reapers do obliterate you."
the renegade shepard will be a "strong leader" to the galaxy - no further word necessary.
at a certain point, the essence could become "overzealous" and starts to see the galactic society as a threat to itself. did that happen to the old catalyst as well? people need a chance to do something wrong. that is how we evolve and learn.

a noble hegemon will still be a hegemon.


that is only one problem with this ending .. the fact that whoever the essence decides is bad for the society can be indoctrinated, is very alarming. ais build or enhanced with reaper tech will also be under the essences control.

controll as an option gives me belly aches.


the other endings are not better, just different. synthesis is equally bad, since it uplifts a society (who is not ready for it) to the apex of evolution. can the new race handle its freedom? can the new society give up certain freedoms? what happens to us, if we loose our will to go on and our curiosity? if you stand on top of a hill, in wich direction can you go?

destroy is also a though choice to make. who is shepard to decide the fate of an entire species? a renegade shepard might not care - but society will after a few years - especially the quarians, who will now need decades and not years to acclimatise to rannoch - if a peace is bokered, the quarians and geth come along relativley fine - so they will care. to the quarians, the loss of the geth is another punishment for their mistakes. a paragon shepard will have to live (in high ems) with his decision - everytime you see a vi, a synthetic or joker, he/she will be faced with this decision.

[dreman9999]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

I am ashamed to admit I never even considered the idea that Drayfish is a troll until it was pointed out. I was under the impression that s/he actually had a key idea behind her claims which I was misunderstanding.

But this thread is yet another difficult discussion which has been turned into a pointless circular argument by the unwillingness of certain posters to actually tackle the problems presented point by point. Instead it is filled with cursory half-answers, followed by entire paragraphs of emotive language which merely repeat all the original points with no new rationale.

It is amazing how many posters in this thread are wilfully overlooking the fact that Destroy is anti-Catalyst in nature. To pick Destroy is to assert your belief that synthetics and organics can coexist. If they couldn't, you would be dooming the galaxy to extinction.

The argument with Drayfish started because s/he said that the game preached a racist, pro-genocide message. S/he then claimed that s/he did not believe this was not the writers' intention, but more an accident due to a failure on the writers' part to follow their own narrative on the sanctity of sapient life. When I asked him/her to explain that position, the response was "I have never claimed to know the writers' minds". The response is plain childish. Do I have to say "In your opinion" at the beginning of every question I pose that is not logically deducible?

To some it may be a relief, many others probably couldn't care less, but I'm out. Enjoy the cycles people.

No, no that won’t do at all. Destroy literally necessitates genocide and empowers the ethically challenged here to justify that particular choice in terms of undermining the value of synthetic life. Less life affirmingly wonderful than unspeakably vile wouldn’t you say?

Destory does not devalue synthetic life. It just place any form of Life, furture or present, as a value to mantane at a loss of some life.

When pick destory, that does nto say synthetic life , now and in the future, is worth less. It saying safe guarding life no matter it takes is a burden you're willing to take, even if it means some life is lost now.

Picking destor doesnot mean furture sythetic life will be devalued. Just that current synthetic life dieing is a consequence.

[ghost9191]

and odds are those synthetics would see it as the logical choice. 1 for 15 yay math

hell the geth would probably see it as logical. not that they would pick it but they would see it as the logical choice . yay cold logic

[dreman9999]

iakus wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

drayfish wrote...
...
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.
...

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.

I don't find the endings to be sacrifices.  Sacrifices imply having an option to not sacrifice.  And Bioware put in a very blunt "Rocks Fall" ending if you choose not to make that sacrifice.  That['s not voluntary, that's duress.

 
Atrocity is a much better word for it.  But again these are atrocities committed under duressWhere are the ethics when the options are "You die and do something horrible to the galaxy" and "You die and take the entire galaxy with you?"  THis is why I compare teh ending chocie to the Saw movies.  It's just a bunch of bloody, psychotic chocies wrapped in a thin veneer of "chocie" and "what do you value?"  

Shepard's being jerked around by a bloody-minded manipulator.  And I'm not tlaking about the Catalyst. 

Learn what sacrifice means.http://www.thefreedi...y.com/sacrifice

1.a. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.b. A victim offered in this way.2.a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.b. Something so forfeited.3.a. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value.b. Something so relinquished.c. A loss so sustained.

It does not mean it's optional.

That is the meaning of self sacrifice.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
Destory does not devalue synthetic life. It just place any form of Life, furture or present, as a value to mantane at a loss of some life.

When pick destory, that does nto say synthetic life , now and in the future, is worth less. It saying safe guarding life no matter it takes is a burden you're willing to take, even if it means some life is lost now.

Picking destor doesnot mean furture sythetic life will be devalued. Just that current synthetic life dieing is a consequence.

The very idea that an entire species, specifically because they're synthetic, can be basically murdered to save everyone else definitely does send the message that they've worth less, and that cooperation can't happen.