Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Bill Casey wrote...
Yes none of them are flying towards earth...
Some of them are just moon-walking to dark space...
None of them are facing backwards. You're seeing things that aren't there. You might wanna lay off the pills son.
Cashmoney007 wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Cashmoney007 wrote...
Control is an awful ending. I laugh at people that try to defend it. Shepard was about killing the Reapers and not becoming a part of them. He or she has been that way since the first game.
And I laught at ignorant and close-minded people like you.
Because Shepard wanted to always control the Reapers since the first game right? oh wait.....
o Ventus wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Bill Casey wrote...
Yes none of them are flying towards earth...
Some of them are just moon-walking to dark space...
None of them are facing backwards. You're seeing things that aren't there. You might wanna lay off the pills son.
Just from a glance, I can see 2 Reapers flying towards Earth.
Xandurpein wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Paragon Control Shepard seems to be a more diplomatic leader.
Renegade Control Shepard seems to be more of an militairy leader.
Shepard is a military leader regardless of whether he's a paragon or a renegade. His power rests on the threat of overwhelming force he posses. He has no popular mandate other than being a war hero. You can't put his power to a vote and replace him as a leader of the Reapers for example. He can be more or less diplomatic in his exercise of power, but you can't argue with the foundation of his power.
That's why I said "Paragon Shepard seems to be a more diplomatic leader" and not "Paragon Shepard is a diplomatic leader".
Well, you had me confused when you put "diplomatic leader" as an opposite to a "military leader". He's not less a military leader because he's a diplomatic one.
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
What I essentially said is that Paragon Shepard is more inclined to use diplomacy and persuation to achieve his goal, while Renegade Shepard uses brute force and intimidation to achieve his goal. The former is more diplomatic, the latter is more typical military.
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Cashmoney007 wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Cashmoney007 wrote...
Control is an awful ending. I laugh at people that try to defend it. Shepard was about killing the Reapers and not becoming a part of them. He or she has been that way since the first game.
And I laught at ignorant and close-minded people like you.
Because Shepard wanted to always control the Reapers since the first game right? oh wait.....
Shepard is unbiased. It's only Anderson and Hackett who try to talk you into destroy, while TIM tries to talk you into Control.
Seriously, stop trying to slam your headcanon BS down our throats. I find it rather annoying how all Control haters come up with BS arguments based on their own headcanons instead of the actual lore present in the game.
Modifié par Cashmoney007, 20 décembre 2012 - 12:16 .
Xandurpein wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
What I essentially said is that Paragon Shepard is more inclined to use diplomacy and persuation to achieve his goal, while Renegade Shepard uses brute force and intimidation to achieve his goal. The former is more diplomatic, the latter is more typical military.
Then I believe that you have a rather biased view of the military, but I can leave it at that.
Cashmoney007 wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Cashmoney007 wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Cashmoney007 wrote...
Control is an awful ending. I laugh at people that try to defend it. Shepard was about killing the Reapers and not becoming a part of them. He or she has been that way since the first game.
And I laught at ignorant and close-minded people like you.
Because Shepard wanted to always control the Reapers since the first game right? oh wait.....
Shepard is unbiased. It's only Anderson and Hackett who try to talk you into destroy, while TIM tries to talk you into Control.
Seriously, stop trying to slam your headcanon BS down our throats. I find it rather annoying how all Control haters come up with BS arguments based on their own headcanons instead of the actual lore present in the game.
There is no BS about it. Shepard has always been about killing the Reapers. Why would you listen to TIM anways?
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
What I essentially said is that Paragon Shepard is more inclined to use diplomacy and persuation to achieve his goal, while Renegade Shepard uses brute force and intimidation to achieve his goal. The former is more diplomatic, the latter is more typical military.
Then I believe that you have a rather biased view of the military, but I can leave it at that.
Perhaps, but you can't deny that the military uses force and sometimes even intimidation to achieve their goals. Diplomacy might be used by the military, but as far as I know it's more often about flashing your guns and nukes and hope the opponent will fall in line before things get ugly, so to speak.
My point is though, that we can see in the Control epilogue that Renegade Shepard is ruling the galaxy in perhaps a rather oppressive way, while Paragon Shepard seems to be less about ruling the galaxy and more about protecting the galaxy as a guardian angel so the speak.
Modifié par Xandurpein, 20 décembre 2012 - 12:38 .
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And again, you're using your BS headcanon as an argument. Shepard wasn't always about killing the Reapers. That's simply how you see it. If that is your headcanon, that's fine, but don't pretent that it's part of the actual canon, because it isn't.
Modifié par Xandurpein, 20 décembre 2012 - 12:39 .
Xandurpein wrote...
Regarding the even if paragon Robo-Shepard indicates that it will ensure that everyone will be heard, it's still heavily implied that he will be sort of "benevolent dictator" and leader of the galaxy. If Robo-Shep truly only was the "guardian" of the galaxy it should limit itself to taking orders from the council or something.
Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 20 décembre 2012 - 12:42 .
f you knew your Clausewitz, you'ld know that military force is an extension of politics. As a rule the military doesn't intimidate. They are used by a politician as a threat to intimidate another politician in a different country to bend to their will. Military leaders come in all shapes and sizes, just as politicians. Look at Eisenhower and Patton in world war 2.
Regarding the role of Shepard as Guardian, I think that even if paragon Robo-Shepard indicates that it will ensure that everyone will be heard, it's still heavily implied that it will be a sort of "benevolent dictator" and leader of the galaxy. If Robo-Shep truly only was the "guardian" of the galaxy it should limit itself to taking orders from the council or something.
Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 12:54 .
He is still the leader of an army. And the only thing the leader of an army can do is go to war against those who oppose him or threaten to go to war against those who oppose him (hoping they will back down before it comes to this).Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Paragon Control Shepard seems to be a more diplomatic leader.
Renegade Control Shepard seems to be more of an militairy leader.
That's a huge difference in my opinion.
What will Paragon Shep use for good and how?Which Renegade Control Shepard will no doubt use when needed. Renegade Shepard is pragmatic like that. Paragon Shepard isn't like that though. Paragon Shepard will probably only use the reapers for good. He will probably send the reapers back to dark space after the rebuilding is done and watch over the galaxy from a distance. Of course, we don't know for sure. We can only speculate, but then we would go into headcanon terrain and I just said how pointless debating headcanon is.
Well, your imagination is pretty limited, too, it seems. You didn't answer, just waved your hands and explained earnestly: Paragon Shep will use his army of doom for good.Then that is your problem, your limit, the limit of your imagination.I have a hard time imagining how to use this in a non-oppressive way and still perform the task that Shepard accepted when he chose control: prevent a technological singularity.
Modifié par klarabella, 20 décembre 2012 - 12:50 .
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Xandurpein wrote...
Regarding the even if paragon Robo-Shepard indicates that it will ensure that everyone will be heard, it's still heavily implied that he will be sort of "benevolent dictator" and leader of the galaxy. If Robo-Shep truly only was the "guardian" of the galaxy it should limit itself to taking orders from the council or something.
because taking orders from 3 organics with a very limited perspective while you yourself are an almost omnipotent and almost omniscient and omnipresent AI construct makes so much sense...
No, a true guardian angel would act like a referee from the sideline. A true guardian angel will let the politics sort it out themselves. Only when things go wrong, will the guardian angel interfere. Like a referee in sports game. Like this referee, a true guardian angel needs to be unbiased and that means he SHOULDN'T take orders from anyone.
Although this is not specifically stated in the Control epilogue, I do get the feeling that this is exactly how ReaperShep will act. He will act like a referee, not a servant of a couple of dumb politicians.
Modifié par Xandurpein, 20 décembre 2012 - 12:51 .
I know it's just a game, but I have to say that I'm a bit disturbed by the lack of respect for and understanding of the basic principles of democracy I see on this thread.
Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 12:56 .
Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And again, you're using your BS headcanon as an argument. Shepard wasn't always about killing the Reapers. That's simply how you see it. If that is your headcanon, that's fine, but don't pretent that it's part of the actual canon, because it isn't.
Costin_Razvan wrote...
Or he could simply be an authoritarian leader, which in itself is not wrong in my eyes and when I look at democracy right now and all it's failures...well then I wouldn' support it.
You have no way of knowing that at the time. You do not know how Godchild was made, and for all you know the process was exactly the same as Control. You have no basis of fact to deduce that Shepard!AI will have more "humanity" than Godchild.First off: that's exactly why you're replacing it. You inject the 'humanity' into it.
This is nonsensical as Shepard does not "take over the wheel"; Shepard is used as the mould for the next guardian AI and dies in the process - both Godchild and the epilogue make this very clear.More importantly, my Shepard saw the Catalyst as an example of what happens when you let a Renegade run things. So he calmly took over the wheel and painted the galaxy a pretty shade of blue
There's plenty of fixed/auto dialogue in all three games that makes Shepard's ultimate goal a matter of canon.spirosz wrote...
You do realize you're using your own headcanon against theirs. Until the last 15 minues of ME3, it was about finding a way to defeat the Reapers, Shepard never said anything "killing" them, nor did he show any interest in controlling them, but one can view it that way and that's fine. There is no "canon", remember.Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And again, you're using your BS headcanon as an argument. Shepard wasn't always about killing the Reapers. That's simply how you see it. If that is your headcanon, that's fine, but don't pretent that it's part of the actual canon, because it isn't.
Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 20 décembre 2012 - 01:33 .
So results don't matter at all? You can take whatever action you like and, as long as it's moral, you don't need to worry about what the results will be, and your conscience will remain clear no matter what? What exactly are your morals based on, if not the welfare of life in the universe? What is, somehow, more important than that; what modes of behavior have such inherent moral value attached to them that they trump actual life?Maniccc wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
Foolishness. No state of existence can be said to be inherently profane (if the Reapers find their own existence to be such, they would commit suicide in Synthesis, but they don't), and you still make a choice to commit genocide via your own action (actually, two of them). It's not a matter of choosing between person A and B, it's a choice of choosing A or choosing both. It's simple as that.
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Anyone can state anything to be inherently profane, it's all a matter of definition and perspective. Of course, we know the Reapers think they are the saviors of all organic life, but not one organic species they wiped out would think of them as anything less then a genicidal and thoroughly evil (profane) thing.
Once again, you fail to understand the difference between choice and consequence. If you say Shep thinks this: "I will destroy all synthetic life" then sure, it is a choice to commit genocide. But Shep does not choose that. Shep chooses: "I will destroy the Reapers." That choice, like every choice ever made in life, has consequences. The question then, is this: Is the annihilation of synthetic life a worst consequence than setting myself up as some imperfect supreme being to which all life must answer? Add to this the fact that control actually contradicts one of the main goals of the story (to free the galaxy from tyranny) by setting up another tyrant.
You make, like I said, a VERY common mistake. You are confusing choices. And no, it's not a matter of choosing to save A and B instead of just A. Reducing the choice to that means to ignore the meaning of saving A and B, In this case, the meaning is creating an imperfect god that will tell everyone what's what, like it or not.
You need to read some moral philosophy and learn the meaning of agency, intention, responsibility, and so on, as it relates to a moral choice. For example, you ignore the issue of intention, and look only at results.
Without considering intent, it is impossible to know if any decision ever made is moral or not. Moral choices may result in undesirable results and immoral choices may result in desirable results. The morality is not determined by result, but by the underlying rationale for the choice regardless of potential results. That is what morality is: the philosophy by which we make a choice.
By looking at results as the determining factor, you can never have a consistent or reliable moral system. Furthermore, since you can never be 100% certain what any given result might be, any "moral" choice so made, will be made in a vacuum. In short, your argument states that there is, in fact, no morality, only desirable and undesirable (or, more or less desirable) results, and any given person will pick any perceived desirable result at any given moment.
So using your own methodology, I will choose to commit Geth genocide because they are synthetics and will eventually turn against organics and seek to destroy us. So by choosing destroy I wipe them out, along with the Reapers, and can then preach about the evils of synthtic life and so on. So as you can see, anything can be justified if you choose based on results and potential results because we do not know the future, so anything can be posited as "possible".
EDIT:
I would also like to point out a strawman fallacy you commit. I never said that the Reapers are "inherently profane", so your entire point on this is moot, anyway.
Any number of things. Defense against the Leviathans and the krogan if they try rising again. A major deterrent from other, new conflicts breaking out. I had an idea of loaning Collectors out to serve as law enforcement in some areas; seeker swarms are certainly a wonderful example of a nonlethal yet thoroughly potent tool of neutralization. And simply rebuilding will take a very long time.What will Paragon Shep use for good and how?
Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 décembre 2012 - 01:51 .
Xilizhra wrote...
So results don't matter at all? You can take whatever action you like and, as long as it's moral, you don't need to worry about what the results will be, and your conscience will remain clear no matter what? What exactly are your morals based on, if not the welfare of life in the universe? What is, somehow, more important than that; what modes of behavior have such inherent moral value attached to them that they trump actual life?
Modifié par Xandurpein, 20 décembre 2012 - 02:15 .
In that case, you're using ignorance as a defense, and that only works in ME3 if you believe that the entire scene is a hallucination and that the Catalyst doesn't really exist. Which I don't think Shepard does, canonically. Otherwise, you know that your action will kill the geth, and killing the geth is part of your intent, as a presumably acceptable sacrifice.Xandurpein wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
So results don't matter at all? You can take whatever action you like and, as long as it's moral, you don't need to worry about what the results will be, and your conscience will remain clear no matter what? What exactly are your morals based on, if not the welfare of life in the universe? What is, somehow, more important than that; what modes of behavior have such inherent moral value attached to them that they trump actual life?
Person A adminsters a lethal poison to a man with the intent of murdering him. Person B sees the assassin and tries to stop him. By sheer coincidence the victim suffers from a rare form of cancer and if the poison is administred it will only kill the cancer but not the victim. Administering the poison will actually save his life. What is more important when you judge the morality of A and B, their intent or the outcome?
Intent is what matters in morality. That doesn't mean that we can justify anything. If it is our intent to sacrifice the Geth in order to kill the Reapers, then we must accept responsibility for it. If the Catalyst lies and the Geth survives, we're not freed from the moral burden of having been willing to sacrifice them.
Seboist wrote...
Apart from making no narrative sense, the reason why the forever alones and carebear types don't pick control is that they won't be with their virtual waifus/manfus in the end.
Xilizhra wrote...
In that case, you're using ignorance as a defense, and that only works in ME3 if you believe that the entire scene is a hallucination and that the Catalyst doesn't really exist. Which I don't think Shepard does, canonically. Otherwise, you know that your action will kill the geth, and killing the geth is part of your intent, as a presumably acceptable sacrifice.Xandurpein wrote...
Xilizhra wrote...
So results don't matter at all? You can take whatever action you like and, as long as it's moral, you don't need to worry about what the results will be, and your conscience will remain clear no matter what? What exactly are your morals based on, if not the welfare of life in the universe? What is, somehow, more important than that; what modes of behavior have such inherent moral value attached to them that they trump actual life?
Person A adminsters a lethal poison to a man with the intent of murdering him. Person B sees the assassin and tries to stop him. By sheer coincidence the victim suffers from a rare form of cancer and if the poison is administred it will only kill the cancer but not the victim. Administering the poison will actually save his life. What is more important when you judge the morality of A and B, their intent or the outcome?
Intent is what matters in morality. That doesn't mean that we can justify anything. If it is our intent to sacrifice the Geth in order to kill the Reapers, then we must accept responsibility for it. If the Catalyst lies and the Geth survives, we're not freed from the moral burden of having been willing to sacrifice them.
Modifié par Xandurpein, 20 décembre 2012 - 02:29 .
Retour en haut