223 réponses à ce sujet

[JShepppp]

masster blaster wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Regurgitating a giant wall of text like that isn't convincing anyone of anything. It looks more like passing agenda pamphlets out. Use your own words, if you have a perspective.

I do.

Reason why the Reapers want to Indoctrinate Shepard.

1. Shepard is the galaxy's greatest herp. Shepard has bested the Reapers battle after battle. Shepard has done the impossible, and it's made Shepard very important person to indoctrinate.

Shepard has been incredibly lucky in my opinion, but he is unique - I am not doubting that. I'm also not doubting that it would be good to indoctrinate him. My argument here is twofold: (a) indoctrination is much harder and more costly to do than killing Shepard, and ( the so-called benefits of indoctrinating Shepard aren't so great (Sections III, II). Therefore, while indoctrination is worthwhile, it is much more efficient to just kill him.

An analogy would be having $20 and choosing to either buy two $10 meals or one $20 meal. The two meals are more efficient, and while the $20 meal may taste better, in terms of pure efficiency, you should buy more food with your money and do the easier thing.

2. If you look at ME2 if Miranda say " If we loose Shepard humainity may as well follow." IF the reapers Indoctrinate Shepard at the end. then the galaxy may as well follow. hence the choices have an impact on not just Shepard, but the galaxy.

Miranda's quote is not a fact, just her opinion. If the Reapers indoctrinate Shepard at the end, then the Alliance sends someone else along to do the work. If they indoctrinate him earlier, and make him do stuff, it becomes obvious that he is indoctrinated, and he becomes useless to the Reapers as he no longer will wield any influence. 

3. Shepard is garhering war assets to take back Earth. The more assets Shepard gather, the more vauable SHepard becomes.

Not necessarily. Everyone is pledged to the cause/ideal of fighting Reapers and helping the Crucible, and while Shepard is a spearhead, he's not the main guy and things will go on without him, indoctrinated or dead or otherwise incapacitated. It's like countries around the world getting convinced by President Obama to sign a treaty. Then if Obama randomly (god forbid) dies, the countries are still going to uphold the treaty they signed with him because they entered an arrangement with the country, not the person. With regards to War Assets, Shepard's indoctrination and death set back the War Effort equally, and as killing Shepard is easier, the Reapers should focus on killing him.

4. It makes logical sense the your enemy would want to have you on their side. take this as an example. If Shepard is finally Indoctrinated in Control, and Synthesis, then the reapers now have Shepard. With Shepard in their Control, they can use Shepard to make everyone stand down or tell the fleet's/ hammer where to go, so the Reapers can spring a trap. Also Shepard's makes a very good undercover agent for the Reapers.

You talked about 3 things Shepard can do - tell the fleet to stand down, spring a trap, and be an undercover agent. Let me lay out why each may not be as good as they seem.

If Shepard tells the fleet to stand down, people will question him, given what's going on. Most likely they'll break off and do their thing, or they'll just consider him indoctrinated and Hackett will step him. Don't forget each race has their own military commanders who can do whatever, and they can see what's going on with their computers and sensor data. Shepard's order to stand down would not be respected, and he would be ostracized from the acting military upon further investigation following the initial suspicion. 

As for springing a trap, that could be done, but once it's done, Shepard's deception is uncovered. They also can't spring a big trap, only a small one. If Shepard sabotages a huge operation, it will be traced back to him, again, with all the ways fleet commanders can see what's up (men on the ground observing, satellite/thermal/sensory imaging, etc.). 

Having an undercover agent wouldn't be as useful because Shepard's knowledge can be hacked from comm networks and other networks or they can indoctrinate people close to him, like Diana Allers. There are other, easier ways to get the information. 

Add to this just how HARD it is to indoctrinate Shepard, and it just would be easier to try to kill him. 

5.During the beam Charge Harbinger has every second to kill Shepard, but doesn't. Harbinger could have killed Shepard right then and there, but didn't. That even goes with when the normandy comes down from space, and lands right in front of Harbinger's blasting vision sight. Why does Harbinger not blow up the Normandy and kill both Shepard, and the nOrmandy for good? Because Harbinger want's Shepard alive to Indoctrinate him, or her.

This is irrelevant. You're saying Harby wants to indoctrinate Shepard - which is ANOTHER topic, probably an IT one - but you're just saying the WHAT. I'm looking at the WHY. We have no idea why. My opinion in the OP, and here, is that there is no reason, and that this doesn't make sense. Rather than do a top-down view (this is the only way it makes sense), I'm looking from the bottom up and building up the case as for why, and I just don't see it. Again, it is my opinion and is not a fact.

6. Again if the reapers Indoctrinate Shepard, you know how much of a blow that would be to the fleets', hammer team, and Shepard's crew/ LI. Very huge that most of them would loose all hope, and either surrender to teh reapers, or panic in fear because if Shepard fails, then they all will die. In a sense Shepard represent's the galaxy's hero. If Shepard were to been Indoctrinated, it would be like when byne makes a speech about Harvy Dent. revealing Shepard as a false hero that can be broken.

I talked about this in the OP too. Shepard wouldn't be revealed as a false hero; it would not be unexpected if Shepard died or was indoctrinated. Both killing and indoctrinating Shepard would probably have the same demoralizing effect on the fleet as they would indicate the loss of their leader. It is easier to kill Shepard. Therefore, the efficient thing to do is kill him, and I don't think indoctrinating him makes sense.

Again, this is my opinion, and I said this in the OP too. It is not fact and I am not saying you are wrong or that there is a right answer.

[Conniving_Eagle]

dreamgazer wrote...

Anyway, I don't think I've said it yet, but I greatly appreciated your post/article, JShepppp, and the work you put into the rationale. I disagree with the overall assertion, but you make a compelling case.

JShepppp is underpaid.

The problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that the Bad Writing Theory is light years ahead of it in terms of plausibility. You know, Occam's Razor and such.

[Eryri]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Your argument is invalid. It doesn't refute the fact that Vendetta (and Vigil) were able to tell if someone was indoctrinated. And after that part, no more going through Reapers, no more whispers, and no more creepy dreams.

That's not quite true. Vendetta makes that statement before Shepard visits the baby reaper on Cronos, or returns to Earth which is swarming with reapers and husks. Plenty of exposure to Reapers there.

Shepard's second conversation with Vendetta on Cronos doesn't really count as proof that Shepard is free of indoctrination, as by then the VI's security protocols had been deactivated.

[JShepppp]

dreamgazer wrote...

Anyway, I don't think I've said it yet, but I greatly appreciated your post/article, JShepppp, and the work you put into the rationale. I disagree with the overall assertion, but you make a compelling case.

Thank you.

[The Heretic of Time]

masster blaster wrote...

1. Shepard is the galaxy's greatest herp. Shepard has bested the Reapers battle after battle. Shepard has done the impossible, and it's made Shepard very important person to indoctrinate.

2. If you look at ME2 if Miranda say " If we loose Shepard humainity may as well follow." IF the reapers Indoctrinate Shepard at the end. then the galaxy may as well follow. hence the choices have an impact on not just Shepard, but the galaxy.

3. Shepard is garhering war assets to take back Earth. The more assets Shepard gather, the more vauable SHepard becomes.

4. It makes logical sense the your enemy would want to have you on their side. take this as an example. If Shepard is finally Indoctrinated in Control, and Synthesis, then the reapers now have Shepard. With Shepard in their Control, they can use Shepard to make everyone stand down or tell the fleet's/ hammer where to go, so the Reapers can spring a trap. Also Shepard's makes a very good undercover agent for the Reapers.

5.During the beam Charge Harbinger has every second to kill Shepard, but doesn't. Harbinger could have killed Shepard right then and there, but didn't. That even goes with when the normandy comes down from space, and lands right in front of Harbinger's blasting vision sight. Why does Harbinger not blow up the Normandy and kill both Shepard, and the nOrmandy for good? Because Harbinger want's Shepard alive to Indoctrinate him, or her.

6. Again if the reapers Indoctrinate Shepard, you know how much of a blow that would be to the fleets', hammer team, and Shepard's crew/ LI. Very huge that most of them would loose all hope, and either surrender to teh reapers, or panic in fear because if Shepard fails, then they all will die. In a sense Shepard represent's the galaxy's hero. If Shepard were to been Indoctrinated, it would be like when byne makes a speech about Harvy Dent. revealing Shepard as a false hero that can be broken.

1. Personally I'd rather see a person that bested me over and over again death. I wouldn't even try to indoctrinate him with the risk of him resisting indoctrinating and my indoctrination attempt failing. I would just dispose of him alltogether. Better save than sorry. It makes more sense to kill Shepard than to try to indoctrinate him. That is the point the OP brought up and his point is very valid.

2. That was back then. Things are different now. The galaxy is united now and there is a plan that everyone has agreed upon. Shepard is not even leading that plan, but Admiral Hackett is. Shepard did his job, he accomplished what he was told to accomplish by Admiral Hackett. He is the leader in this war now. That doesn't mean Shepard isn't important though. It does however mean that indoctrinating Shepard at this point would be a waste of time. It would be much better to just kill him.

3. During the assault on Earth, Shepard is already done gathering his War Assets. He fulfilled his purpose. The War Assets are in the hands of Admiral Hackett now. At this point Shepard isn't all that important anymore. Once again, indoctrinating him seems pointless at this time. It would be smarter to just kill him.

4. This is not true. Shepard is not leading this war anymore, Admiral Hackett is. Shepard doesn't have the power to give orders to the fleets. And if an indoctrinated Shepard would even dare to give stupid orders or try to tell the feelts to stand down or anything like that, don't you think that Shepards superiors would find this rather fishy? Don't you think they would intervene as soon as they realize something is not right with Shepard? Once again, Shepard is not leading the war. He has plenty of superiors standing above him. As soon as Shepard would f*ck things up, the Admirals would intervene and put Shepard in quarantine.

5. Even if Harbinger wanted to indoctrinate Shepard, which would be stupid, then there is no reason for him not to blow up the Normandy. So how do you explain that part? Why didn't Harbinger blow up the Normandy when he had the chance? This doesn't make any sense. Can you explain this with a believable explanation, or should we just accept that this is bad writing on BioWares part?

6. Indoctrinating Shepard or killing Shepard, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Both would deliver an equal blow to the morale of the Alliance. So if this is the only reason to indoctrinate Shepard then they might as well just kill him instead. Again, killing Shepard seems to make more sense than indoctrinating him.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Eryri wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Your argument is invalid. It doesn't refute the fact that Vendetta (and Vigil) were able to tell if someone was indoctrinated. And after that part, no more going through Reapers, no more whispers, and no more creepy dreams.

That's not quite true. Vendetta makes that statement before Shepard visits the baby reaper on Cronos, or returns to Earth which is swarming with reapers and husks. Plenty of exposure to Reapers there.

Shepard's second conversation with Vendetta on Cronos doesn't really count as proof that Shepard is free of indoctrination, as by then the VI's security protocols had been deactivated.

It's after the Kai Leng fight, before they're about to go to Earth.

Well then, who knew Indoctrination was such a fast process.

[BatmanTurian]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Anyway, I don't think I've said it yet, but I greatly appreciated your post/article, JShepppp, and the work you put into the rationale. I disagree with the overall assertion, but you make a compelling case.

JShepppp is underpaid.

The problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that the Bad Writing Theory is light years ahead of it in terms of plausibility. You know, Occam's Razor and such.

You can't use Occam's Razor in fiction for the 9000th time.

[demersel]

JShepppp wrote...

demersel wrote...

JSheppp - come to our thread - will discuss things. You seems to be open for a civil discussion.

This discussion is 100% IT related and should be proceeding in the main IT topic. 

It's not IT-related in my opinion, though I would be happy to discuss it further. There are only two issues that would prevent my usefulness in the IT thread:

1. I'm not familiar with the specifics of indoctrination theory;

2. I'm not on enough, I think, to reply in time, given how fast the IT thread moves. 

The latter may be an issue in discussions if I went to the IT thread.

Understandable. 

But unfortunatly, as you can clearly see, it is an IT thread now.

And it will be even harder for you to keep up with the discussion, with all the flaming, from both ITiers and IThaters. 

Was really trying to help - if you would double it in our thread - all ITiers would not have come here to comment, and the thread would not get spammed with flaming and could actually hava a chance at staying on the Non_IT side of topic. 

In case you do have time - check out IT's original post - we try to present all the relevant info we find there.  
 

[Bill Casey]

Firstly, the quote was "I do not sense the taint of indoctrination on any of you", secondly, it was Vigil, not Vendetta...

And thirdly, after the Reapers left, the survivors on Illos risked sending out a message on the beacons. It was encoded so only organic beings could use it...

Vigil: We still didn't understand the power of reaper indoctrination

[The Heretic of Time]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Anyway, I don't think I've said it yet, but I greatly appreciated your post/article, JShepppp, and the work you put into the rationale. I disagree with the overall assertion, but you make a compelling case.

JShepppp is underpaid.

The problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that the Bad Writing Theory is light years ahead of it in terms of plausibility. You know, Occam's Razor and such.

Thanks. Sadly my Bad Writing Theory thread didn't get much attention. Probably because there were already so many threads about bad writing back in the days. I think it's also because everyone seems to agree that ME3 is badly written, except for those few loyal BioWare fans and those very few Indoctrination Theory believers. When the majority seems to agree on something, there isn't much to discuss.

[CptBomBom00]

I sense either this thread will get locked or it will become a battleground, between ITers and the rest of BSN.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Anyway, I don't think I've said it yet, but I greatly appreciated your post/article, JShepppp, and the work you put into the rationale. I disagree with the overall assertion, but you make a compelling case.

JShepppp is underpaid.

The problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that the Bad Writing Theory is light years ahead of it in terms of plausibility. You know, Occam's Razor and such.

Thanks. Sadly my Bad Writing Theory thread didn't get much attention. Probably because there were already so many threads about bad writing back in the days. I think it's also because everyone seems to agree that ME3 is badly written, except for those few loyal BioWare fans and those very few Indoctrination Theory believers. When the majority seems to agree on something, there isn't much to discuss.

 about your thread, it's one of the most valid out there.

 There are only a few IT people? Jesu Christo! Look at that thread of theirs!

[The Heretic of Time]

Bill Casey wrote...

Firstly, the quote was "I do not sense the taint of indoctrination on any of you", secondly, it was Vigil, not Vendetta...

Nope, Vendetta said the same thing (or at least something similar along those lines).

And thirdly, after the Reapers left, the survivors on Illos risked sending out a message on the beacons. It was encoded so only organic beings could use it...

Vigil: We still didn't understand the power of reaper indoctrination

Perhaps they did not understand the power of indoctrination, but they did seem to have the capability of detecting indoctrination. One does not have to understand how something works in order to be able to detect that something is there. 

For example: As a 3 years old kid I had no clue that the sun and the moon were actually 2 different objects. I simply assumed that when I saw the moon, it was actually the sun, but turned off.
Even though I did not realize that the sun and the moon where 2 different things, I could still detect the differences between the sun and the moon.

[The Heretic of Time]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

 about your thread, it's one of the most valid out there.

You could ressurect it if you wish, or start a new one. I wouldn't mind.

 There are only a few IT people? Jesu Christo! Look at that thread of theirs!

Jep. The same dozen of people posting there all the time on a very frequent basis.

[ElSuperGecko]

JShepppp wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
Great post, and interesting argument JShepppp. You make a very solid case for your argument.

One question for you. While there are hints and suggestions at Shepard undergoing the indoctrination process from the Arrival DLC right through ME3, one of the thoughts about Shepard's possible indoctrination is that it's a last-ditch attempt to stop Shepard from activating the Crucible, or to persuade him to use it to further the Reaper's own ends.

The idea is that once Shepard boards the Citadel - once he leaps into the beam - he his effectively beyond the reach of the Reapers. They can no longer physically prevent Shepard from activating the Crucible. So they turn to the other weapon in their arsenal, and attack Shepard's mind. Effectively, the events following the encounter with the Illusive Man become the indoctrination attempt, with the Reapers trying to influence Shepard's decision in the Catalyst chamber.

How would you respond to this interpretation?

I think it's a very valid interpretation, though my counter argument would be why they helped Shepard up to the Catalyst in the first place (Shepard wouldln't have made it to the Crucible without the Catalyst's help). 

My guess is that in the Citadel, rather than stop Shepard from activating the Crucible, the Reapers/Catalyst realized Shepard was trapped, injured, and weak, and this lowers the cost of indoctrinating him (my argument in my OP is that the cost of indoctrinating Shepard is too high versus the benefits). As Shepard can't do any more damage in the Citadel, they tried to indoctrinate him, but failed because TIM was too strong, giving Shepard time to react either physically (shoot) or otherwise (convince TIM to kill himself). 

Basically, looking specifically at the window of the Citadel at Earth, indoctrination is different because it's much easier to do and has much lower costs and potential backfiring ramifications. As it is, down next to Harbinger, Marauder Shields tried to kill - not wound - Shepard. So it is only while ON the Citadel - where, in retrospect, Shepard can't really do much - that they turn to indoctrination over death. 

Then Shepard collapsed and died - no big deal, until the Catalyst realized it needed Shepard to activate the Crucible, which provided better options. Then the ending happened. 

That is my personal opinion. Not sure if it makes sense.

Thanks for the response.  My own thoughts are that the entire Catalyst sequence is a Reaper indoctrination attempt, but the rest of Priority Earth and the return to the Citadel are very real.  The beam rush, Harbinger's offensive, the TIM/Anderson conversation etc all happens and plays out as we see it.

It's when Shepard makes his move for the control panel at Hackett's urging that the Reapers (or Harbinger) exert their influence.  Shepard loses conciousness - but what causes that los of conciouness?  Shepard's injuries, or external influence?  The rising platform is accompanied by the "dream transition white out" that we see every time Shepard moves between a virtual world or dream and reality.

The final sequence - the decision chamber and the Catalyst conversation takes place inside Shepard's mind, in a similar manner to the Leviathan encounter.  Hackett is urging Shepard to find a way to activate the Crucible - the Reapers try to stop you in the only manner they have left.

Just my interpretation of the finale, of course. 

[OdanUrr]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Jep. The same dozen of people posting there all the time on a very frequent basis.

It's become a sort of micro-forum.

[Restrider]

JShepppp wrote..

There seems to be some misunderstanding on what I posted - the idea is not that indoctrinating Shepard is useless. The idea is that it's inefficient relative to killing Shepard - killing Shepard is easier and gives similar benefits. The so-called benefits of indoctrinating Shepard are not really that useful, and killing Shepard should be the choice. This does NOT diminish Shepard's importance. Shepard's importance and uniqueness is an inherent assumption.

Again, the Reapers try to kill Shepard throughout ME3. The problem is, they are not successful.
As I mentioned earlier, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Reapers might have started the process of indoctrination in Arrival. Of course it needs a lot of time for it to be complete, but it is a rather autonomous process (again, Derelict Reaper indoctrinating Cerberus scientists) that does not require resources.
Since the Reapers fail in killing Shepard, they use their other strategy.
If we assume that Shepard lies in London rubble with Harbinger still at the beam screwing with Shepard's mind, the Reapers might get an ally and if that is not the case they can still kill him with ease. The only exception seems to be high EMS Destroy end, where the war assets can prevent Harbinger from killing Shepard after breaking the indoctrination attempt (obviously this is all IT interpretation here).
So, it boils down to the following:

The Reapers try to kill Shepard through ME3 -> Shepard survives because we are so awesome players
The Reapers knock Shepard out at the beam and try to indoctrinate him, if they are successful -> good for them
The Reapers are not successful in their efforts to turn Shepard to their side -> they still kill him in most Destroys ending, unless we have collected a huge amount of war assets preventing that

The idea that a single indoctrinated individual can bring down organizations or nations is apparently what the Codex says, but we don't see this happen at all in-game - this was what my first section was about, showing how indoctrinated people, even someone as charismatic and compelling as TIM (from ME2 at least), still must indoctrinate their followers and operate on the fringes of society. This is for high-profile people. Shepard cannot do any of those two things, and thus his supposed usefulness as an indoctrinated avatar is really not that great - it's a one-time deal only. As for getting information about what Shepard's doing, they could hack Alliance computers and comm networks and use a bunch of other ways to get what they want. They're on Earth - they could indoctrinate an assistant of Anderson and learn everything that way. The point is that Shepard is resistant (NOT immune - we have no proof) to indoctrination, and given the sparse benefits over death, death is a more efficient choice. Again, I said this in my OP - apologies if it was unclear.

As you said, it is mentioned in the codex and if I recall correct the Batarian Hegemony was infiltrated by indoctrinated agents and hence is now a smoking ruin after the first days of invasion while the other races are able to hold the line (though only for a few weeks/months).
Another example is the indoctrinated Hanar diplomat that can doom Kahje, if you do not do the Jondum Bau/Kasumi mission.

The reason why this was not meant to be IT related, aside from possible flaming (not ITers, but rather IT vs non-ITers - the interaction is what causes flaming), is because IT discusses the process by which Shepard could be indoctrinated. My opinion - note again, OPINION, not fact, as I noted in the OP (which means I'm not saying I'm right or wrong) - is only relevant to WHY indoctrination is the desired option over death. I am not talking about HOW he became indoctrinated, or WHAT the stage of his indoctrination is, nor am I even talking about WHERE or WHEN he may have been indoctrinated. I am just talking about why, over death, indoctrination would be preferred.

Unfortunately, I can't respond to everyone here, though I would like to somehow.

I see your point and I have tried to keep this on topic. This is not about hints but about motives.
Sadly the IT is a topic that polarizes a lot and usually derails interesting debates.

[The Heretic of Time]

OdanUrr wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Jep. The same dozen of people posting there all the time on a very frequent basis.

It's become a sort of micro-forum.

Yeah, it's quite the club. I've been hanging out there for a while now, playing devils advocate. To be among the ITers is rather... interesting. It feels a bit like that movie Dances With Wolves. 

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 01 décembre 2012 - 12:28 .

[masster blaster]

JShepppp wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Regurgitating a giant wall of text like that isn't convincing anyone of anything. It looks more like passing agenda pamphlets out. Use your own words, if you have a perspective.

I do.

Reason why the Reapers want to Indoctrinate Shepard.

1. Shepard is the galaxy's greatest herp. Shepard has bested the Reapers battle after battle. Shepard has done the impossible, and it's made Shepard very important person to indoctrinate.

Shepard has been incredibly lucky in my opinion, but he is unique - I am not doubting that. I'm also not doubting that it would be good to indoctrinate him. My argument here is twofold: (a) indoctrination is much harder and more costly to do than killing Shepard, and ( the so-called benefits of indoctrinating Shepard aren't so great (Sections III, II). Therefore, while indoctrination is worthwhile, it is much more efficient to just kill him.

An analogy would be having $20 and choosing to either buy two $10 meals or one $20 meal. The two meals are more efficient, and while the $20 meal may taste better, in terms of pure efficiency, you should buy more food with your money and do the easier thing.

2. If you look at ME2 if Miranda say " If we loose Shepard humainity may as well follow." IF the reapers Indoctrinate Shepard at the end. then the galaxy may as well follow. hence the choices have an impact on not just Shepard, but the galaxy.

Miranda's quote is not a fact, just her opinion. If the Reapers indoctrinate Shepard at the end, then the Alliance sends someone else along to do the work. If they indoctrinate him earlier, and make him do stuff, it becomes obvious that he is indoctrinated, and he becomes useless to the Reapers as he no longer will wield any influence. 

You forget how important Shepard is. When Shepard died it changed everyone. Wrex went back to Tuchanka to prepare for teh Reapers arrival/ gather the Korgan and unite them.

Ash lost hope, and went into a dark place in her mind.

Garrus became a whole new diffrent Garrus, that took the law in his own hands.

Tali went back to the fleet, and lead strike teams.

Liara was trying to find the Shadow broker.

I mean I can go on, but you get the point. Yes they could send a new person  in, but that means that person would have to fight Shepard. You also forget that Shepard is good at lying.  Before you talk about wrex. Think about it Wrex is smart not to trust Shepard if you tell him a lie. now what if Wrex is dead. Does his brother find out about the sabatoge cure no. It just depends how Shepard can lie.

3. Shepard is garhering war assets to take back Earth. The more assets Shepard gather, the more vauable SHepard becomes.

Not necessarily. Everyone is pledged to the cause/ideal of fighting Reapers and helping the Crucible, and while Shepard is a spearhead, he's not the main guy and things will go on without him, indoctrinated or dead or otherwise incapacitated. It's like countries around the world getting convinced by President Obama to sign a treaty. Then if Obama randomly (god forbid) dies, the countries are still going to uphold the treaty they signed with him because they entered an arrangement with the country, not the person. With regards to War Assets, Shepard's indoctrination and death set back the War Effort equally, and as killing Shepard is easier, the Reapers should focus on killing him.

Shepard is the main guy/Gal. Without Shepard leading the way, then the war would have never happened in ME3, but in ME1. Yes Shepard had help, but everyone agrees that Shepard is not just a soldier, but Shepard keeps telling him/her self he/she is.

4. It makes logical sense the your enemy would want to have you on their side. take this as an example. If Shepard is finally Indoctrinated in Control, and Synthesis, then the reapers now have Shepard. With Shepard in their Control, they can use Shepard to make everyone stand down or tell the fleet's/ hammer where to go, so the Reapers can spring a trap. Also Shepard's makes a very good undercover agent for the Reapers.

You talked about 3 things Shepard can do - tell the fleet to stand down, spring a trap, and be an undercover agent. Let me lay out why each may not be as good as they seem.

If Shepard tells the fleet to stand down, people will question him, given what's going on. Most likely they'll break off and do their thing, or they'll just consider him indoctrinated and Hackett will step him. Don't forget each race has their own military commanders who can do whatever, and they can see what's going on with their computers and sensor data. Shepard's order to stand down would not be respected, and he would be ostracized from the acting military upon further investigation following the initial suspicion. 

As for springing a trap, that could be done, but once it's done, Shepard's deception is uncovered. They also can't spring a big trap, only a small one. If Shepard sabotages a huge operation, it will be traced back to him, again, with all the ways fleet commanders can see what's up (men on the ground observing, satellite/thermal/sensory imaging, etc.). 

Having an undercover agent wouldn't be as useful because Shepard's knowledge can be hacked from comm networks and other networks or they can indoctrinate people close to him, like Diana Allers. There are other, easier ways to get the information. 

Add to this just how HARD it is to indoctrinate Shepard, and it just would be easier to try to kill him. 

Not really. Look at Leviathan, and see how easy it was for them to get into Shepard's mind. Also there are hints that Shepard is under going Indoctrination, so if it's hard, then how does the Catalyst know about the child?

5.During the beam Charge Harbinger has every second to kill Shepard, but doesn't. Harbinger could have killed Shepard right then and there, but didn't. That even goes with when the normandy comes down from space, and lands right in front of Harbinger's blasting vision sight. Why does Harbinger not blow up the Normandy and kill both Shepard, and the nOrmandy for good? Because Harbinger want's Shepard alive to Indoctrinate him, or her.

This is irrelevant. You're saying Harby wants to indoctrinate Shepard - which is ANOTHER topic, probably an IT one - but you're just saying the WHAT. I'm looking at the WHY. We have no idea why. My opinion in the OP, and here, is that there is no reason, and that this doesn't make sense. Rather than do a top-down view (this is the only way it makes sense), I'm looking from the bottom up and building up the case as for why, and I just don't see it. Again, it is my opinion and is not a fact.

Nope. In Arrival Harbinger wanted Shepard alive, and he even says " Struggle if you wish your mind will be mine."

6. Again if the reapers Indoctrinate Shepard, you know how much of a blow that would be to the fleets', hammer team, and Shepard's crew/ LI. Very huge that most of them would loose all hope, and either surrender to teh reapers, or panic in fear because if Shepard fails, then they all will die. In a sense Shepard represent's the galaxy's hero. If Shepard were to been Indoctrinated, it would be like when byne makes a speech about Harvy Dent. revealing Shepard as a false hero that can be broken.

I talked about this in the OP too. Shepard wouldn't be revealed as a false hero; it would not be unexpected if Shepard died or was indoctrinated. Both killing and indoctrinating Shepard would probably have the same demoralizing effect on the fleet as they would indicate the loss of their leader. It is easier to kill Shepard. Therefore, the efficient thing to do is kill him, and I don't think indoctrinating him makes sense.

Again, this is my opinion, and I said this in the OP too. It is not fact and I am not saying you are wrong or that there is a right answer.


Okay we are actually both right.
you see if Shepard picks Destroy, or refuse, the reapers either kill Shepard right then and there, or they leave Shepard to die, but are patroling the area in in case anyone wants to rescue Shepard.

Destroy= Shepard breaking free, and sticking it to the reapers. The Leader of the reapers ( Which I think is Harbinger)respects Shepard's determination to kill them, but sadly Shepard has to die. hence no breath scene, if you have low/ mid assets for Destroy. Now before you say " but the assets protect the crucible, and the more you have, the better the end you get/ the blast" correct, but the brat tells Shepard " The crucible will not discriminate ALl synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly Synthetic.  meaning Shepard will die if he/she picks this choice. Or else, why would the brat tell Shepard " Even you are partly Synthetic"?

Control is Shepard becoming Indoctrinated. I mean come on TIM wanted to Control the Reapers, as did the Indoctrinated Protheans. look what happened to the Indoctrinated Protheans. Collectors anyone. Also The catalyst tells you that TIm could never control them because we already control him.

Synthesis= Shepard Indoctrinated, or (Shepard is merged with Harbinger to become the ultimate Reaper). Everything that Shepard is will be sent out, meaning everything that your Shepard is, will be gone.

Refuse= breaking Indoctrination/ moral victory, but Shepard dies because you see. If you refuse the brat, then the brat leaves Shepard to die. But it's up for debate.

Anyways you have 2 endings where Shepard becomes Indoctrinated.
And to endings where Shepard dies, unless for Destroy you have high ems, and Shepard lives.

Oh and EMS= Shepard's willpower
galatic readiness is Shepard's readiness.

Modifié par masster blaster, 01 décembre 2012 - 12:31 .

[demersel]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Yeah, it's quite the club. I've been hanging out there for a while now, playing devils advocate. To be among the ITers is rather... interesting. It feels a bit like that movie Dances With Wolves. 

Oh, yes, what a hero you are. It is nice to feel special, isn't it? 

[The Heretic of Time]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Anyway, I don't think I've said it yet, but I greatly appreciated your post/article, JShepppp, and the work you put into the rationale. I disagree with the overall assertion, but you make a compelling case.

JShepppp is underpaid.

The problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that the Bad Writing Theory is light years ahead of it in terms of plausibility. You know, Occam's Razor and such.

You can't use Occam's Razor in fiction for the 9000th time.

Of course you can.


We also have Hanlon's Razor, which can be applied to the ending fiasco to point out that bad writing is a more likely scenario than some kind of indoctrination plot-twist conspiracy theory.

[masster blaster]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Anyway, I don't think I've said it yet, but I greatly appreciated your post/article, JShepppp, and the work you put into the rationale. I disagree with the overall assertion, but you make a compelling case.

JShepppp is underpaid.

The problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that the Bad Writing Theory is light years ahead of it in terms of plausibility. You know, Occam's Razor and such.

You can't use Occam's Razor in fiction for the 9000th time.

Of course you can.


We also have Hanlon's Razor, which can be applied to the ending fiasco to point out that bad writing is a more likely scenario than some kind of indoctrination plot-twist conspiracy theory.

You do realize Occam's Razor can also be used for IT right. Ask byne, and the others.

[DoomsdayDevice]

It makes sense to Garrus.

Soldier: But converting other life forms into Reapers... I can't wrap my head around that.
Garrus: Makes sense to me. It ensures you never run out of cannon fodder. Eliminates any local resistance. And for every soldier you add, your enemy loses two: the one you converted, and his buddy on the other side who can't pull the trigger on a friend. (...)
Soldier: But the Reapers want to destroy us.
Garrus: And I have no intention of letting them. But If you don't respect your enemy's capabilities, you're in for one nasty surprise after another.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 01 décembre 2012 - 12:41 .

[The Heretic of Time]

demersel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Yeah, it's quite the club. I've been hanging out there for a while now, playing devils advocate. To be among the ITers is rather... interesting. It feels a bit like that movie Dances With Wolves. 

Oh, yes, what a hero you are. It is nice to feel special, isn't it? 

 I certainly do feel that way in the IT thread, being one of the only 4 people there that doesn't believe in the IT.

Not here though. Here I'm just one of the many people that doesn't believe in the IT.