1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Xandurpein wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

It's entirely possible that he will be detached and a great ruler. In some sense I think gamers will be more okay with this than they realize; how many RPGs have you played where there is a monarch on the good side, and he still rules at the end of the game? But the player is okay with it because they are a great person who respects the people. I didn't see many DA Origins threads upset you couldn't overthrow the Thedas monarchy and install a democracy.

Apparently the only real objection that a lot of people have about dictatorship is that it's not they who are the dictator.

Precisely. I believe many, possibly even most, people think this way, deep down inside. How many people have objected to Control on the basis of "it's not really Shepard?"

[The Heretic of Time]

Xandurpein wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

It's entirely possible that he will be detached and a great ruler. In some sense I think gamers will be more okay with this than they realize; how many RPGs have you played where there is a monarch on the good side, and he still rules at the end of the game? But the player is okay with it because they are a great person who respects the people. I didn't see many DA Origins threads upset you couldn't overthrow the Thedas monarchy and install a democracy.

Apparently the only real objection that a lot of people have about dictatorship is that it's not they who are the dictator.

Except in the Control ending they are (in a way). So I don't see why these people are complaining about the Control ending.

[Xandurpein]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I guess you find the idea of an almighty God watching over us also pretty scary? Not that I'm a believer by the way, I'm pretty much an atheist. But in hindsight I think The Shepard Catalyst is closer to a God than an actual political leader.

Let's just say that I know that a large portion of the worst atrocities this world has seen has been committed by people who were convinced that they were the only person fit to rule, or that they had a duty to "enlighten" people and force them to see things their way.

[Xandurpein]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

It's entirely possible that he will be detached and a great ruler. In some sense I think gamers will be more okay with this than they realize; how many RPGs have you played where there is a monarch on the good side, and he still rules at the end of the game? But the player is okay with it because they are a great person who respects the people. I didn't see many DA Origins threads upset you couldn't overthrow the Thedas monarchy and install a democracy.

Apparently the only real objection that a lot of people have about dictatorship is that it's not they who are the dictator.

Except in the Control ending they are (in a way). So I don't see why these people are complaining about the Control ending.

They don't. It's the rest of us who complain.

[The Heretic of Time]

Xandurpein wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I guess you find the idea of an almighty God watching over us also pretty scary? Not that I'm a believer by the way, I'm pretty much an atheist. But in hindsight I think The Shepard Catalyst is closer to a God than an actual political leader.

Let's just say that I know that a large portion of the worst atrocities this world has seen has been committed by people who were convinced that they were the only person fit to rule, or that they had a duty to "enlighten" people and force them to see things their way.

And how does that relate to the Control ending in any way? I doubt Shepard thinks he's the only person fit to rule. You might headcanon him as such a person of course, that is all up to you.

[Costin_Razvan]

Xandurpein wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

klarabella wrote...

The difference is: We certainly expect the Renegade Shepalyst to have a shorter fuse. And we expect him to be all "DO OR ELSE" while we probably see a Paragon Shepalyst saying "DON'T OR ELSE": The difference is very small because after that the Reapers will start to shoot or begin to indoctrinate. 

So? The police in real-life does exactly the same. So does the army. Got a problem with that?

Once again, you are confusing the power to enforce laws with the power to make them. If Shepard only enforces laws he can be imagined as a galactic police. It's the fact that he also makes the laws that are the problem. Robo-Shepard is a two milliion ton lazor-destructor armed Judge Dredd, answerable to no one, and yes - I do have a problem with that!

I love how you shout about the inherent immorality of the control ending while you commit genocide against the Geth and allow the current Council to remain as it is.

A Council that has commited and condoned genocide not once but twice. A council made up of the great Human System's Alliance, a governement so paralyzed by fear that they ignored every evidence pointing to the existance of the reapers to not cause public panic.

A Council which includes the Turian Hierarchy, a military dictatorship which forcifully conquers races and makes them client races, essentially slavery.

A Council with the Asari Matriarchs hiding away the existance of the Prothean Beacon on Thessia from other races, while making laws about sharing prothean technology in the galaxy, and using the information within it to put themselves at the top of the food chain.

A Council with the Salarian Union in it, a governement where the oposition threatened civil war had the Salarians fleets moved to assist in the overall war effort and led by Linron who leaves the galaxy to burn if you don't follow her plan to commit genocide on the Krogans.

I have to ask, how in the flying **** should I find this Council, a so called "democracy" but in reality led by an oppresive Oligarchy, preferable to authoritarian rule imposed by Shepard?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[CronoDragoon]

Xandurpein wrote...
Apparently the only real objection that a lot of people have about dictatorship is that it's not they who are the dictator.

I think a lot of qualms they have about dictatorships IRL are more dependent in stories. Here's a tangent: Vigilantes are actually quite frightening in real life. The idea of vigilante justice, I mean. But everyone loves Batman because we know him and know he'll do the right thing. It's sort of the same with beneficent kings/queens in fiction.

[Xilizhra]

I have to ask, how in the flying **** should I find this Council, a so called "democracy" but in reality led by an oppresive Oligarchy, preferable to authoritarian rule imposed by Shepard?

Well, to be fair, it's on pretty much the same level as Renegade Shepard.

[Costin_Razvan]

Xilizhra wrote...

I have to ask, how in the flying **** should I find this Council, a so called "democracy" but in reality led by an oppresive Oligarchy, preferable to authoritarian rule imposed by Shepard?

Well, to be fair, it's on pretty much the same level as Renegade Shepard.

Renegade, Paragon, they are both simply meters and not representative of the major choices one makes. My meter was mostly renegade and yet I still had saved the Rachni, Council, made Anderson Councilor. Saved Maelon's Data, cured the Genophage, had Wrex and Eve alive, resolved the Quarian/Geth conflict.

To me Renegade was simply shouting a lot or being intimidating rather then "nice". It also meant preserving the base. killing Vido instead of saving the workers and so on. I was a hardcore pragmatist ultimately even if I made some "good decisions" they were made on pragmatic rather then so called moral grounds. Morality has never had a real place in politics.

And even IF what you were saying was true then it still doesn't change the Paragon Control Ending.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 03:41 .

[o Ventus]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Look closer, they aren't. 

But who cares anyway? It's not as if it matters or makes a huge difference.

Yes they are. I don't know if you're blind or missing it on purpose. Look at the far right. Unless that Reaper is flying backwards, it's heading to Earth.

[The Heretic of Time]

o Ventus wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Look closer, they aren't. 

But who cares anyway? It's not as if it matters or makes a huge difference.

Yes they are. I don't know if you're blind or missing it on purpose. Look at the far right. Unless that Reaper is flying backwards, it's heading to Earth.

If I look to the far right I see a reaper flying away from earth in a 45 degrees angle. Maybe you should let your eyes being checked. You probably need glasses.


And again I have to ask; how does this matter even in the slightest bit?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 20 décembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[CronoDragoon]

Xilizhra wrote...

I have to ask, how in the flying **** should I find this Council, a so called "democracy" but in reality led by an oppresive Oligarchy, preferable to authoritarian rule imposed by Shepard?

Well, to be fair, it's on pretty much the same level as Renegade Shepard.

It's not though, certainly not in practice. What makes the Council semi-workable is the fact that each member will be selfish for their race's interest. More importantly, if the Council steps out of line too far, they can be checked. They are not all-powerful. But Shepard is.

[Costin_Razvan]

Who exactly checked the council when they uplifted the Krogan then allowed them to kill off all the Rachni except an egg. Who checked the Council when the Turians unleashed the Genophage? Who checked the Council when they allowed the Quarians to almost die off? Who checked the Council when they denied the existance of the Reapers?

No one.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[Maniccc]

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?

Once again, you oversimplify the whole matter and commit a strawman.  Results matter, but results are not how you determine whether a choice is moral or immoral.  They can't be, because you can never be certain what the results will be.  Ever heard of the phrase "unintended consequences"? 

If you are going to have a conversation with me, I would appreciate it if you take into consideration everything I write and not just cherry pick one or two things to poke at.  Having to write the same things over and over again is tiresome.  Thank you.

As to your question about "life", I find your language a bit uncertain.  You are ignoring a whole host of issues in your statement.  While I apreciate the apaprent passion you exhibit, I find your position simplistic in a number of ways.

You are, in effect, saying slavery is preferred to freedom.  Now, maybe that is true in your case, but I disagree.  I personally would rather die free, than live as a slave.  No, I understand the rather simplistic argument some are making, that peace is an ultimate good, and they walk away from the whole thing feeling they've made some sort of final judgement that cannot be gainsaid by any rational or decent person.  But the whole statement is flawed.  Who said freedom means necessarily war?  Who said shep-god means necessarily  peace? 

To say that paragon shep means a bemevolent and peaceful rule of the galaxy is projecting based on nothing.  We know that Shep is a person, with limited knowledge.  We know the Reaper AI is deeply flawed in its proclomations.  To assume that combining two imperfect objects somehow creates a perfect being (whatever "perfect" means in any practical sense) is absurd.  Shep clearly intends to "ensure" (Shep's paragon word choice)his vision is enacted, whether you like ot or not.

So the question is this:  is it better to have an imperfect, flawed god determine your morality for you and enforce it absolutely, or is it better to be free?

If you say you prefer the former, that's fine.  I will say the latter.  But don't tell me that the former is objectively better, or that it is the "welfare of the galaxy" because it is not.  It is only your idea of the "welfare of the galaxy".  It certainly is not mine.  And here's the rub:  if you like what god-shep does, you can be happy, but will you then use your personal perpsective, which is little more than opinion, and enforce it over others against their will?  What happens when they chafe against that rule?  Will you imprison them?  Torture them?  Kill them?  Indoctrinate them?  How exactly is this "good"?

Anyone who supports control is essentially saying they support the government in 1984.

Modifié par Maniccc, 20 décembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[Xandurpein]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I guess you find the idea of an almighty God watching over us also pretty scary? Not that I'm a believer by the way, I'm pretty much an atheist. But in hindsight I think The Shepard Catalyst is closer to a God than an actual political leader.

Let's just say that I know that a large portion of the worst atrocities this world has seen has been committed by people who were convinced that they were the only person fit to rule, or that they had a duty to "enlighten" people and force them to see things their way.

And how does that relate to the Control ending in any way? I doubt Shepard thinks he's the only person fit to rule. You might headcanon him as such a person of course, that is all up to you.

Because you can believe that your Shepard is awesome and good, but unless you headcanon the whole Mass Effect universe into being a place when that is always true it can still go wrong. Just because you think your Shepard is good, doesn't mean that I or anyone else agrees. Robo-shepard is answerable to no one and he has only raw physical force to legitimize his claim to the role as arbiter. I

[The Heretic of Time]

To add what Costin says:

The Council themselves decide which race is fit to join the council. They hold all the cards. The volus have been oppressed by the council for god knows how many years. And what can the volus do about it? Nothing.

Tell me, how exactly is this council checked and how is this council any better than Catalyst Shepard?

[CronoDragoon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Who exactly checked the council when they uplifted the Krogan then allowed them to kill off all the Rachni except an egg.

You mean the decision that saved the galaxy? Why would that need checking? It was necessary.

Who checked the Council when the Turians unleashed the Genophage? Who checked the Council when they allowed the Quarians to almost die off? Who checked the Council when they denied the existance of the Reapers?

No one.

I'm not sure how any of that is evidence that the Council is all-powerful. In all of those cases the galaxy's population and leaders were complicit in the decision, and in many of those cases supportive (you will be hard-pressed to find people who thought the genophage was a bad decision on moral grounds). Was it only the Council that didn't believe Shepard? That's what I thought.

[CronoDragoon]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

To add what Costin says:

The Council themselves decide which race is fit to join the council. They hold all the cards. The volus have been oppressed by the council for god knows how many years. And what can the volus do about it? Nothing.

Tell me, how exactly is this council checked and how is this council any better than Catalyst Shepard?

The Council holds power only so long as the galaxy supports their decisions in general. You don't see a great outcry among the races about the volus failing to get a seat, now do you?

[Xandurpein]

Maniccc 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?

Once again, you oversimplify the whole matter and commit a strawman.  Results matter, but results are not how you determine whether a choice is moral or immoral.  They can't be, because you can never be certain what the results will be.  Ever heard of the phrase "unintended consequences"? 

If you are going to have a conversation with me, I would appreciate it if you take into consideration everything I write and not just cherry pick one or two things to poke at.  Having to write the same things over and over again is tiresome.  Thank you.

As to your question about "life", I find your language a bit uncertain.  You are ignoring a whole host of issues in your statement.  While I apreciate the apaprent passion you exhibit, I find your position simplistic in a number of ways.

You are, in effect, saying slavery is preferred to freedom.  Now, maybe that is true in your case, but I disagree.  I personally would rather die free, than live as a slave.  No, I understand the rather simplistic argument some are making, that peace is an ultimate good, and they walk away from the whole thing feeling they've made some sort of final judgement that cannot be gainsaid by any rational or decent person.  But the whole statement is flawed.  Who said freedom means necessarily war?  Who said shep-god means necessarily  peace? 

To say that paragon shep means a bemevolent and peaceful rule of the galaxy is projecting based on nothing.  We know that Shep is a person, with limited knowledge.  We know the Reaper AI is deeply flawed in its proclomations.  To assume that combining two imperfect objects somehow creates a perfect being (whatever "perfect" means in any practical sense) is absurd.  Shep clearly intends to "ensure" (Shep's paragon word choice)his vision is enacted, whether you like ot or not.

So the question is this:  is it better to have an imperfect, flawed god determine your morality for you and enforce it absolutely, or is it better to be free?

If you say you prefer the former, that's fine.  I will say the latter.  But don't tell me that the former is objectively better, or that it is the "welfare of the galaxy" because it is not.  It is only your idea of the "welfare of the galaxy".  It certainly is not mine.  And here's the rub:  if you like what god-shep does, you can be happy, but will you then use your personal perpsective, which is little more than opinion, and enforce it over others against their will?  What happens when they chafe against that rule?  Will you imprison them?  Torture them?  Kill them?  Indoctrinate them?  How exactly is this "good"?

Anyone who supports control is essentially saying they support the government in 1984.

Well put.

+1

[The Heretic of Time]

Xandurpein wrote...

Because you can believe that your Shepard is awesome and good, but unless you headcanon the whole Mass Effect universe into being a place when that is always true it can still go wrong. Just because you think your Shepard is good, doesn't mean that I or anyone else agrees.

Whether Shepard is "good" or not is not important. "Good" and "bad" is all a matter of perspective. What is important is the question whether Shepard is a good leader. The answer to that is a full and clear YES, as is clearly portayed over the past 3 games and confirmed by many of the NPC characters in the game.

Maybe not everyone will agree with Shepards leadership and how he does it, but that doesn't factually make him any less of a good leader.

Robo-shepard is answerable to no one and he has only raw physical force to legitimize his claim to the role as arbiter.

That is completely false. Please try again.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 20 décembre 2012 - 03:51 .

[Iakus]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I have to ask, how in the flying **** should I find this Council, a so called "democracy" but in reality led by an oppresive Oligarchy, preferable to authoritarian rule imposed by Shepard?

The Council is mortal, and can over time be changed or overthrown if the people are determined enough.

The Reapers, as we've been told over and over "cannot be beaten conventionally"  If the Shepard-Reaper gets an idea the galaxy doesn't like, there is no vote of no confidence, no pressure to retire, no violent revolution.  You're stuck with it.

[Xandurpein]

The real test of any so called benevolent dictator isn't what laws he/she tries to enact. It's what the dictator does when the people no longer wants to be led.

[Costin_Razvan]

Killing off every single Rachni was necesary to save the Galaxy? I am surprised.

I'm not sure how any of that is evidence that the Council is all-powerful.

It's about checks of power. The Council, time and time again, has proven that it can do whatever it wants to. That people supported that is irrelevant. Every leader in history who committed genocide was supported by thousands if not millions of people. Popular support for a governement does not indicate morality or benevolence.

 The real test of any so called benevolent dictator isn't what laws he/she tries to enact. It's what the dictator does when the people no longer wants to be led.

Leadership will always be necesary or else we have anarchy. You have yet to bring a good reason why the Council is so good.

 The Council is mortal, and can over time be changed or overthrown if the people are determined enough.

The Reapers, as we've been told over and over "cannot be beaten conventionally"  If the Shepard-Reaper gets an idea the galaxy doesn't like, there is no vote of no confidence, no pressure to retire, no violent revolution.  You're stuck with it.

The Council's problem aren't related to any one councilor, it's about the institution itself that is flawed. it's the how the individual governements are strucutred and led.

As for the Reapers. Hackett says you can't win conventially against that, but did anyone bother to graps what he was really saying?  The forces of the Galaxy were too few, too unprepared.

Give them a few decades of peace with all the technology they've gained from the Reapers and along with the loses the Reapers did endure during the war they would be able to win. Of course it depends on Shepard ultimately on what he or she will do in the aftermath.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 03:59 .

[Xilizhra]

And even IF what you were saying was true then it still doesn't change the Paragon Control Ending.

Quite true. In my own situation, I can keep the good parts of the Council and... discourage the bad parts.

If you are going to have a conversation with me, I would appreciate it if you take into consideration everything I write and not just cherry pick one or two things to poke at. Having to write the same things over and over again is tiresome. Thank you.

Gross condescension is also tiresome. I could be more inclined to reply to everything if this is dialed back some.

You are, in effect, saying slavery is preferred to freedom. Now, maybe that is true in your case, but I disagree. I personally would rather die free, than live as a slave. No, I understand the rather simplistic argument some are making, that peace is an ultimate good, and they walk away from the whole thing feeling they've made some sort of final judgement that cannot be gainsaid by any rational or decent person. But the whole statement is flawed. Who said freedom means necessarily war? Who said shep-god means necessarily peace?

What I'm saying is that I don't believe I can make the choice for the geth for them to die, and certainly can't make that choice for the Reapers. With Destroy out of the question, I believe that Control is the more predictable and overall safer of the remaining options.

To say that paragon shep means a bemevolent and peaceful rule of the galaxy is projecting based on nothing. We know that Shep is a person, with limited knowledge. We know the Reaper AI is deeply flawed in its proclomations. To assume that combining two imperfect objects somehow creates a perfect being (whatever "perfect" means in any practical sense) is absurd. Shep clearly intends to "ensure" (Shep's paragon word choice)his vision is enacted, whether you like ot or not.

I never spoke at all about a "perfect" being, and have no idea where you got this from. I do not, personally, as the Catalyst, plan on interfering much in the minutiae of government; that's what I keep the Council around for. My vision, simply put, is a galaxy free of war and large-scale conflict in general; there's other things I'd like, but I can't really use the Reapers to enforce those.

If you say you prefer the former, that's fine. I will say the latter. But don't tell me that the former is objectively better, or that it is the "welfare of the galaxy" because it is not. It is only your idea of the "welfare of the galaxy". It certainly is not mine. And here's the rub: if you like what god-shep does, you can be happy, but will you then use your personal perpsective, which is little more than opinion, and enforce it over others against their will? What happens when they chafe against that rule? Will you imprison them? Torture them? Kill them? Indoctrinate them? How exactly is this "good"?

If they try to wage war on others or myself, I will stop them. Beyond that, many other things would seem to be too small-scale for me to intervene on unless the galaxy actually wants me to intervene there. Which they might well.

Anyone who supports control is essentially saying they support the government in 1984.

And you call me simplistic?

The real test of any so called
benevolent dictator isn't what laws he/she tries to enact. It's what the
dictator does when the people no longer wants to be led.

If that's what the galaxy truly wants, then I can surrender my power and free the Reapers.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 décembre 2012 - 03:55 .

[The Heretic of Time]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

To add what Costin says:

The Council themselves decide which race is fit to join the council. They hold all the cards. The volus have been oppressed by the council for god knows how many years. And what can the volus do about it? Nothing.

Tell me, how exactly is this council checked and how is this council any better than Catalyst Shepard?

The Council holds power only so long as the galaxy supports their decisions in general. You don't see a great outcry among the races about the volus failing to get a seat, now do you?

Of course the rest of the galaxy doesn't complain about the volus not getting a seat, why would anyone who isn't a volus give a flying f*ck? But that's not exactly fair now is it?

If anything, ReaperShep sounds like a better leader than our current council. ReaperShep claims to act as a voice for the many, to ensure that all have a voice in the future. Sounds like at least the volus will be better of with ReaperShep than the current council. Probably all the non-council races will prefer ReaperShep over the current council. I know I would if I were a volus, a krogan or a quarian.