1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

Absolute freedom is a strawman fallacy, and your condemnation of the Council is disingenuous. The Council is not static, and is not one person with one mind, as already pointed out.

And as already pointed the Council as an institution has committed a great deal of repressive acts.

You are saying that living as a slave is preferable to death.

Authoritarianism is not slavery.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 05:58 .

[The Heretic of Time]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

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.

I 100% agree,

That was a popular sentiment in the 1930's too. Didn't end all that well, if memory serves.

Did you really need to Godwin it? Bah, your comparison is nothing but a disgusting flawed strawman.

[Costin_Razvan]

You know what's hilarious that Hitler was elected and was quite popular.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 06:01 .

[clennon8]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As if you'd have an example, clennon. Pfft.

Exactly!  Which is why I assume it will be just fine!  Why worry?  Just install Shepard 2.0, fire up the Reaper army, and wait for the good times to start rolling.  That's what I say.

[jtav]

Easy on the snark clen.

But restating what I think your larger point was, the risk of a Catalyst 2.0 is not nil, but it's not a certainty either. If we believe that either Destroy or Synthesis involve doing some evil then merely taking a risk is preferred. Basically, Control is an unknown quantity flanked by certain evils. If you even believe the other two are disqualifyingly problematic to begin with. if either passes muster, Control loses its attractiveness.

[CronoDragoon]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I'm perfectly aware of all that. And again, it's not a fusion, but a replacement. Big difference.

But the issue with the Catalyst remains. The Catalyst wasn't corrupted or defective; his problem was that he took a set of directives and spit out the best solution which happened to include killing all advanced civilization. Now, you can argue that unlike the Catalyst, Shepard's morals and beliefs have now also been encoded into directives. While this lessens the chance that Shepard's input-output will draw an unwanted conclusion, there are still many ways that a directive of "protect the many" can go awry.

Shepard has replaced the Catalyst and improved the programming, so to speak, but the chance still remains.

[CronoDragoon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You know what's hilarious that Hitler was elected and was quite popular.

Hitler also got smacked down. That's the argument here. If Hitler were Shepard-AI Jews would be exterminated, along with whatever else Hitler wanted killed.

[SpamBot2000]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

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.

I 100% agree,

That was a popular sentiment in the 1930's too. Didn't end all that well, if memory serves.

Did you really need to Godwin it? Bah, your comparison is nothing but a disgusting flawed strawman.

And weak too, no doubt. Sorry if my lack of interweb etiquette is disturbing your fascist fantasies. The reference was entirely appropriate in the context, however. Maybe you ought to read some 1930's literature to see the parallels to your opinions.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 20 décembre 2012 - 06:08 .

[Guy On The Moon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Note: This thread is intended to be an IT-free zone

What this is about:
I'm making this thread to present my hypothesis that ethical considerations play a smaller role in people's final choice than they claim, and to ask people why they don't choose Control.

The observation:
The ethics of the final choice have been discussed to death. Many people, if not most, claim that the morality of the final choice is a big, if not the deciding factor in their choice. People claim they make a certain decision because it's "less wrong than the others".

Now consider Control. You are not sacrificing a whole domain of life like in Destroy. You are not changing the biochemistry of all life in the galaxy. In fact, you are not killing or hurting anyone. You only keep the Reapers enslaved, which according to common perception is justifiable. It's even questionable if you actually killed yourself. From no rational ethical viewpoint can Control considered to be morally wrong. Even if you're firmly convinced that "power corrupts" - which isn't a moral argument rather than an ideological one - the fact that you have agency over the future in Control (see below) will let you avoid any projected negative consequences with no side effect.
Yet, according to various polls, Control is the least popular choice, even less popular than Synthesis.

Another curious aspect is that Control is the only ending where your agency can be said to extend into the future. For that reason, people have used Control to create headcanons resulting in scenarios similar to the other endings while avoiding their ethical downsides. People have said "Continuity of identity or not, if this Control Entity is informed by my Shepard's values, then it will send the Reapers into a black hole after the repairs are done / will encourage a Synthesis future without forcing it" and similar things. Players want agency, right? Control gives it to them. Like no other option of the final choice, if you, the player, say what happens in your ME universe after the ending, others will be hard-pressed to find arguments against it because nobody else has control of your Shepard's values which informed the Control Entity. 
Yet Control is the least popular choice.

I find that baffling. It makes no sense. Clearly, if people avoid Control, tangible ethical downsides can't be the reason, because it doesn't have any. Lack of agency also can't be the reason, since while the amount of agency you actually have may be doubtful, there can be no doubt at all that you have more impact on the future than in the other endings.

The question:
In order to shed some light on the matter, I'm asking everyone who avoids Control: why do you avoid Control? Why do you avoid a decision which is clearly ethically superior to the others? Also, if you have an opinion or a hypothesis on why more people don't choose Control, please share it!

Of course, people can ask me that, since my main Shepard also doesn't choose Control but Synthesis. I'll give an answer eventually, but I'd like to read others' first. For now, only this: ethical consideration do play a smaller role in my decisions than other considerations. However, I have never claimed otherwise.

Because Shepard lives in the other one.

[Costin_Razvan]

CronoDragoon: Who exactly is going to smack down the Alliance/Turians/Salarians/Asari Council then?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 06:10 .

[Ieldra]

Guy On The Moon wrote...
Because Shepard lives in the other one.

Yup. Perfectly valid but proving my point. Not an ethical reason. Well, you didn't claim that so it's all ok.

[CronoDragoon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Who exactly is going to smack down the Alliance/Turians/Salarians/Asari Council then?

Did you not just play a series in which the Reapers did just that? How about the fact that Shepard managed to get his way in this series despite the Council's wishes? Remember when the Council grounded Shepard? How'd that work out? Remember when they wouldn't give him support for Earth, and he circumvented them and got troops anyway? Or how about the fact that some Council members assisted Shepard on the down-low while others did not? The Council is not a single entity but a collection of them. There are going to times when they all agree and times they won't. "The Council" is not invulnerable. They can all die in ME1 after all.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 décembre 2012 - 06:14 .

[Bill Casey]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You know what's hilarious that Hitler was elected and was quite popular.

Hitler lost the election against Hindenberg...
He was appointed Chancellor as an appeasement, martial law was declared after the Reichstag fire and he liquidated all opposition...

[The Heretic of Time]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

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.

I 100% agree,

That was a popular sentiment in the 1930's too. Didn't end all that well, if memory serves.

Did you really need to Godwin it? Bah, your comparison is nothing but a disgusting flawed strawman.

And weak too, no doubt. Sorry if my lack of interweb etiquette is disturbing your fascist fantasies. The reference was entirely appropriate in the context, however. Maybe you ought to read some 1930's literature to see the parallels to your opinions.

You're calling me a fascist you little punk?

The Control ending is nothing like the little German man with the funny mustache and the reference is completely flawed and entirely uncalled for. I think, being an European person who's grandparents saw it all happening in the 1930's and onwards, I know a little bit more about this subject than you. You're really ignorant if you think our German man with the mustache became corrupt just because he was an authoritarian leader. You couldn't be more wrong.

Now GTFO of here before I report you.

[BWSocial]

Brainstorming what's my main reason not to choose control:

Self preservation. I want to live and simply cannot get myself to 'commit suicide' even if my spirit will live on (in some monstrosity). The urge to live on is even bigger than the grief of sacrificing EDI, LEGION (and the entire geth for that matter). IF... I would have had to sacrifice, say, my LI for the destroy-option however, then I'm not so sure I 'd always pick it!
Also, for the synthesis option, who am I to unilaterally decide that all organics becoming half synthetic and synthetics half organic is good for life. "Big picture made of too many little pictures," to quote one of my favorite friends in ME .

Secondary reason is the thought  that tells me: "Reapers WANT all threats to them to either advocate control or even (more or less) synthesis," so it cannot be good. Perhaps this reason is my personal means to justify the end which automatically returns me to:
 
self preservation.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Shepard has replaced the Catalyst and improved the programming, so to speak, but the chance still remains.

So this is the straight-up Renegade argument that Shep shouldn't take chances, like the argument for killing the rachni queen in ME1?

[SpamBot2000]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

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.

I 100% agree,

That was a popular sentiment in the 1930's too. Didn't end all that well, if memory serves.

Did you really need to Godwin it? Bah, your comparison is nothing but a disgusting flawed strawman.

And weak too, no doubt. Sorry if my lack of interweb etiquette is disturbing your fascist fantasies. The reference was entirely appropriate in the context, however. Maybe you ought to read some 1930's literature to see the parallels to your opinions.

You're calling me a fascist you little punk?

The Control ending is nothing like the little German man with the funny mustache and the reference is completely flawed and entirely uncalled for. I think, being an European person who's grandparents saw it all happening in the 1930's and onwards, I know a little bit more about this subject than you. You're really ignorant if you think our German man with the mustache became corrupt just because he was an authoritarian leader. You couldn't be more wrong.

Now GTFO of here before I report you.

I said you have fascist fantasies. You called me a 'little punk'. 

And seriously, report me? Whatever. If I get reported, I'm glad it's for calling people out on this kind of BS.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 20 décembre 2012 - 06:25 .

[AlanC9]

Bill Casey wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You know what's hilarious that Hitler was elected and was quite popular.

Hitler lost the election against Hindenberg...
He was appointed Chancellor as an appeasement, martial law was declared after the Reichstag fire and he liquidated all opposition...

Correct. It's more accurate to say that he came to absolute power via legal procedures, rather than via election; after the Enabling Act there wasn't any constitution to speak of, so there weren't any laws to break.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 décembre 2012 - 06:29 .

[Costin_Razvan]

I said you have fascist fantasies

Fascism is extremist national authoritarianism which uses indoctrination, among other things, to sway a population to their views.

I fail to see what nationalism of all things has to do with Hanar's views or the control ending.

[The Heretic of Time]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

If I get reported, I'm glad it's for calling people out on this kind of BS.

Hehe, my o my, you have quite an interesting perspective on reality...

[SpamBot2000]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I said you have fascist fantasies

Fascism is extremist national authoritarianism which uses indoctrination, among other things, to sway a population to their views.

I fail to see what nationalism of all things has to do with Hanar's views or the control ending.

I'm not gonna get into a dispute on the 'fascist minimum' here, there's a whole literature on that. You are, however, confirming 'extremist authoritarianism which uses indoctrination, among other things, to sway a population to their views', I see. Nationalist or not, it still sounds a wee bit abhorrent.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 20 décembre 2012 - 06:41 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Shepard has replaced the Catalyst and improved the programming, so to speak, but the chance still remains.

So this is the straight-up Renegade argument that Shep shouldn't take chances, like the argument for killing the rachni queen in ME1?

And the argument for keeping the genophage. Renegade arguments in Mass Effect usually take the form of doing harm now to prevent the possibility of future, greater harm, while Paragons correct present wrongs at the risk of future, greater harm.

[The Heretic of Time]

So people who like the Control ending have fascist fantasies and abhorrent now? What kind of madness is this? How can I argue against this kind of BS?

[Guy On The Moon]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Guy On The Moon wrote...
Because Shepard lives in the other one.

Yup. Perfectly valid but proving my point. Not an ethical reason. Well, you didn't claim that so it's all ok.

I'm trolling around

But honestly I did contemplate choosing control on my first playthrough.  In my paragon shep I tried to mirror decisions I would make if I were him.  I ended up choosing synthesize in the end because I wanted the best for the whole galaxy and thought it actually was the final (or next) phase of organic evolution, to finally fuse synthetics in your system.  But after I saw the ending after the choice, (I know you said not IT in her but...) saw IT on youtube, and saw that your Shepard lives afterwards if you choose destroy, I regretted my decision.  I still regret not choosing destroy on my first playthrough.  I will admit I was confused on the color scheme of the choices.  I grew so accustomed to seeing and choosing blue that I was actually just going to do it because it was blue.

I ultimately decided not to choose control because, in my opinion, that is having way too much power.  The advantages and reasons you listed are very plausible, but you just have too much power in your hands.  I know nobody else but Shepard could handle it and he/she wouldn't become corrupt, but he's still human and he's/she's not perfect.  Giving that much power to a human being never goes right.

Also I saw the images of the Illusive man on the left, Anderson on the right, and decided to go in the middle because of the hipster in me :happy:

[Bill Casey]

Control was always abhorrent...
Especially after the EC...