1388 réponses à ce sujet

[SpamBot2000]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

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?

I'd go with something non-fascist, not abhorrent.

[CronoDragoon]

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.

Is your point that a few people chose Destroy because Shepard lives or that people generally avoid Control for non-ethical reasons?

[Nefla]

I might have before EC thinking "Reaper-Shep will just order himself and all the reapers to fly into the sun and no one else has to die" after EC, synthesis and control are creepy as hell. The idea actually makes me feel sick to my stomach.

[AlanC9]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

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...

I'm gonna report both you guys for spamming. Enough, already.

[Ieldra]

Let's get a few things clear about autocratic rule:

Autocratic rule is not, per se, better or worse than democratic rule. Its problem is that it depends on the ruler. With a very good ruler, you'll get better results than in any democratic system, with a bad ruler, you'll get much worse results. The advantage of a democratic system is that it averages things out and can remove bad governments, so we almost never get the very bad results, at the price of also never getting the very good ones. Most people like stability, so they're more concerned about not letting the bad stuff happen than about letting more good stuff happen. That works well in normal times, but not so much in crisis scenarios. That's why we have such things as emergency powers. The problem is that some disasters can only be prevented if you start far earlier than any democratic system would grant emergency powers. That's the main rationale for autocratic rule.

So what we're really asking here is "Can any Shepard be the kind of person whose values can inspire an AI to be and remain a good ruler?" Note that being a good ruler doesn't mean never to do anything that offends anyone or treads on anyone's rights. That's not possible for any kind of government, whether elected or autocratic. All it means is that its rule will maintain a reasonable balance between the needs of individuals and the needs of the community as a whole. We are talking about autocratic rule here, not about totalitarianism.

We cannot answer the question with any kind of finality. Is it worth taking the risk in the face of the alternatives? We can only guess. The only thing we know is that the other decisions have very big built-in aspects which are extremely problematic, while Control only has a risk.

Also, at the bottom of all this there is the question: can we govern ourselves? On a more philosophical level, Control asks the question whether we are as children and need a guide until we have grown up. At times it seems to me that we need one.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 21 décembre 2012 - 10:01 .

[The Heretic of Time]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

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?

I'd go with something non-fascist, not abhorrent.

Whether Control is or isn't abhorrent is merely an opinion and quite frankly, I don't give a damn about your opinion. However, if you think the Control ending is fascist you're just a f***ing ******. 

[AlanC9]

Bill Casey wrote...

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

How'd the EC make it worse?

[Ieldra]

CronoDragoon wrote...

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.

Is your point that a few people chose Destroy because Shepard lives or that people generally avoid Control for non-ethical reasons?

Even more: my hypothesis is that ethical reasons are not the deciding factor in most people's decisions. It's just most obvious in Control. I do not exclude myself. If ethical concerns were my deciding factor, my main Shepard would be obliged to choose Control. But he doesn't.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 20 décembre 2012 - 06:55 .

[Costin_Razvan]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

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.

You miss two points here:

1) Shepard-Catalyst isn't necesarily extermist, nor does any control ending show him being so.
2) Shepard-Catalyst isn't going to necesarily use indoctrination from the Reapers. It's not mentioned in any control ending.

Fascism is a very very specific brand extreme of authoritanism, something Shepard does not by any stretch have to adhere to.

Ieldra2: Thanks for that well thought out and written post.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 06:56 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Let's get a few things clear about autocratic rule:

Autocratic rule is not, per se, better than democratic rule. Its problem is that it depends on the ruler. With a very good ruler, you'll get better results than in any democratic system, with a bad ruler, you'll get much worse results. The advantage of a democratic system is that it averages things out and can remove bad governments, so we almost never get the very bad results, at the price of also never getting the very good ones. Most people like stability, so they're more concerned about not letting the bad stuff happen than about letting more good stuff happen. That works well in normal times, but not so much in crisis scenarios. That's why we have such things as emergency powers. The problem is that some disasters can only prevented if you start far earlier than any democratic system would grant emergency powers. That's the main rationale for autocratic rule.

So what we're really asking here is "Can any Shepard be the kind of person whose values can inspire an AI to be and remain a good ruler?" Note that being a good ruler doesn't mean never to do anything that offends anyone or treads on anyone's rights. That's not possible for any kind of government, whether elected or autocratic. All it means is that its rule will maintain a reasonable balance between the needs of individuals and the needs of the community as a whole. We are talking about autocratic rule here, not about totalitarianism.

We cannot answer the question with any kind of finality. Is it worth taking the risk in the face of the alternatives? We can only guess. The only thing we know is that the other decisions have very big built-in aspects which are extremely problematic, while Control only has a risk.

Also, at the bottom of all this there is the question: can we govern ourselves? On a more philosophical level, Control asks the question whether we are as children and need a guide until we have grown up. At times it seems to me that we need one.

Ieldra2 knows what he/she is talking about. A well written post my friend. Interesting view on the endings. I think I mostly agree with this.

[CronoDragoon]

Ieldra2 wrote...
Even more: my hypothesis is that ethical reasons are not the deciding factor in most people's decisions. It's just most obvious in Control. I do not exclude myself. If ethical concerns were my deciding factor, my main Shepard would be obliged to choose Control. But he doesn't.

Ooo, I like that hypothesis. So the deciding factor isn't moral in the majority of ending choosers, across all endings? Interesting. I would say that Refusers would have the highest % of "moral deciders" so to speak, given that they are choosing principle over consequence.

A short 2-post discussion Alan and I had got buried a bit, but I think it's relevant.

Let us assume you choose Destroy because you worry about the possibility of Shepard-AI doing something horrible. In essence you are choosing to do present harm to avoid future, greater harm.

That's interesting because it is decidedly Renegade in its logic. Think about the Renegade in Mass Effect. It does harm now to prevent future harm that could be worse. Killing the Rachni Queen, not curing the Genophage, etc. Paragons risk future harm to prevent present wrongdoings.

Seen in this light I don't think the Renegades in ME3 are as extreme as some people say. I think the main problem with the Renegade/Paragon dichotomy is that because of the present/future opposition detailed above, you can never really SEE Paragon consequences, as they presumably occur in the future. Control follows this paradigm, I think.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 décembre 2012 - 07:04 .

[The Heretic of Time]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Even more: my hypothesis is that ethical reasons are not the deciding factor in most people's decisions. It's just most obvious in Control. I do not exclude myself. If ethical concerns were my deciding factor, my main Shepard would be obliged to choose Control. But he doesn't.

Ooo, I like that hypothesis. So the deciding factor isn't moral in the majority of ending choosers, across all endings? Interesting. I would say that Refusers would have the highest % of "moral deciders" so to speak, given that they are choosing principle over consequence.

A short 2-post discussion Alan and I had got buried a bit, but I think it's relevant.

Let us assume you choose Destroy because you worry about the possibility of Shepard-AI doing something horrible. In essence you are choosing to do present harm to avoid future, greater harm.

That's interesting because it is decidedly Renegade in its logic. Think about the Renegade in Mass Effect. It does harm now to prevent future harm that could be worse. Killing the Rachni Queen, not curing the Genophage, etc. Paragons risk future harm to prevent present wrongdoings.

Seen in this light I don't think the Renegades in ME3 are as extreme as some people say. I think the main problem with the Renegade/Paragon dichotomy is that because of the present/future opposition detailed above, you can never really SEE Paragon consequences, as they presumably occur in the future. Control follows this paradigm, I think.

Interesting point of view. I like your idea of "causing harm now to prevent greater harm in the future" to be the main philosophy behind the Renegade decisions. I think you're right. However, I am the exception to your rule (or at least, my Shepard is).

My Shepard is mostly Renegade, yet I chose Control because I thought the Control ending would fit him better. I liked the idea of Control and I was willing to take the risks that come with the Control decision. It's something I normally didn't do with my Shepard. He killed the rachni queen, let the council die, destroyed the heretic geth and kept the collector base. Yet he also chose control.


Wait, the Collector base... keeping is the Renegade decision, blowing it up is Paragon. But this is completely against your philosophy. In this scenario, the Paragon is destroying the base to prevent possible future harm, while the Renegade is keeping the base despite the risks that come with it. This is completely the opposite of all other Paragon and Renegade decisions. Maybe your philosophy isn't as water-tight as you thought it was?

[SpamBot2000]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm gonna report both you guys for spamming. Enough, already.

You do as you see fit. 

[Bill Casey]

AlanC9 wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

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

How'd the EC make it worse?

No more flying the reapers into the sun...
Shepalyst gives a lengthy speech on how he will use the reapers, set to villain music...

[SpamBot2000]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

I fail to see how you can arrive at the bolded conclusion merely by the fact that the biochemistry of life is not altered and there is no immediate body count. We are talking about the establishment of a permanent godhead in control of the devastating powers of the Reapers. Powers that cannot be resisted, unless of course the Shepalyst will look kindly on the development of methods of overthrowing it. Is that the way you envision it?

Establishing this kind of an eternal order will of course put everyone in the galaxy forever in the position of subordination to the Shreaper. What this role allows is dependent wholly on the whim of the eternal authoritarian in command. What the Shepalyst does or does not do is not even the heart of this issue. Taking this kind of power to check anyone's freedom, for all of eternity no less, would seem to involve some ethical problems. Can't you see that you allowing freedom for the population of the galaxy itself involves you assuming the power to allow it, that is you placing yourself between every individual ever and their freedom?

Furthermore, 'Power corrupts' is most difinitely a moral argument when you apply it to yourself. 

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 20 décembre 2012 - 07:31 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Bill Casey wrote...

...set to villain music...

How exactly is the Control ending music villain music? Yes, it is an ominous soundtrack, but villain music? No, I don't think so.

This is classic (and awesome) villain music. It sounds completely different.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 20 décembre 2012 - 07:33 .

[HiddenInWar]

For some odd reason, if I picked Control, I would worry that Garrus (or whoever I was romancing at the time), would find my decision selfish.

[kal_reegar]

whether we can or can't govern ourselves, every political system will eventually fall or forced to change, due internal or extarnal pressures.
some of us will always want to be free. Or want to be more powerful. Right or wrong, for freedom or greed, we will always rebel, even against the best ruler.

Shepard and the reapers aren't all-mighty. They aren't truly God. They are very powerful but like the Leviathans and the Catalyst, they can commit mistakes and can be defeated.


So I don't see how control is substantially different from destroy in this sense.
Yes, Reaper-Shepard can monitor the situation and solve problems quickly, he can prevent and/or stop every threat against peace, for a long time... but not forever.
Besides the reapers were so powerful because their enemies weren't particulary developed
Give the turian and/or salarian and/or geth other thousand year, peace, prosperity and reapers tech, and they could become more powerful than the reapers themselves.


So, Shepard can't rule the galaxy indefinitly... he will have to find another solution for the "synthetics vs organics" problem. Synthesis, Harvesting, something new.

as destroy, control is not the solution.
In both scenario the galaxy will have to find a new balance. The only diffence is how it will be obtained: from above or from below.

[Ieldra]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Even more: my hypothesis is that ethical reasons are not the deciding factor in most people's decisions. It's just most obvious in Control. I do not exclude myself. If ethical concerns were my deciding factor, my main Shepard would be obliged to choose Control. But he doesn't.

Ooo, I like that hypothesis. So the deciding factor isn't moral in the majority of ending choosers, across all endings? Interesting. I would say that Refusers would have the highest % of "moral deciders" so to speak, given that they are choosing principle over consequence.

Consequentialism is a meta-ethical principle. It's not one we are intuitively wired for, but it is as valid as deontology.

Let us assume you choose Destroy because you worry about the possibility of Shepard-AI doing something horrible. In essence you are choosing to do present harm to avoid future, greater harm.

That's interesting because it is decidedly Renegade in its logic. Think about the Renegade in Mass Effect. It does harm now to prevent future harm that could be worse. Killing the Rachni Queen, not curing the Genophage, etc. Paragons risk future harm to prevent present wrongdoings.

In its logic, Destroy is a Renegade decision. I've always said that. Completely eradicate risk X, even if you must sacrifice Y for it. The logic is 100% Renegade.

In its themes, however, Destroy is a Paragon decision. It affirms the traditional view of life, it destroys the unnatural abominations, it affirms the freedom and integrity of organic life against the domination and intrusion of machines. My personal problem is that these are all themes of the traditionalist Paragon, who is mainly concerned with affirming certain principles, while if I play Paragon, I'm of the pragmatic kind whose priority is to save most lives (Control), or of the idealist kind who wants to "redeem evil" (Synthesis). I (the player) am an anti-traditionalist radical, so even my most Paragon Shepards could never choose Destroy.

Seen in this light I don't think the Renegades in ME3 are as extreme as some people say. I think the main problem with the Renegade/Paragon dichotomy is that because of the present/future opposition detailed above, you can never really SEE Paragon consequences, as they presumably occur in the future. Control follows this paradigm, I think.

Oh no. That's not the problem at all. The problem is that the story favors Paragons to an almost silly degree. Positive Paragon consequences do materialize, while negative consequences never do - while they easily could. Take the Rachni queen decision: take a risk and save her, she'll be an ally. The Paragon is validated. The opposite *never* happens, not in important decisions. Whenever a Paragon lets someone live, it will turn out right. Cure the genophage and you'll get a second chance for gaining salarian support. The net benefit of sabotaging the cure is a measly 10 points of EMS. It shouldn't always turn out right. Pragmatism wouldn't be pragmatic if it never had a point.

[SeptimusMagistos]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

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.

You are assuming knowledge of the eventual outcome of the decision.

Did you even listen to the Catalyst's explanation of its own function and the outcome of Control? It's all made perfectly clear.

AlexMBrennan wrote...
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.

Eh, any AI based on my Shepard would certainly continue to think of itself as Shepard. Since it's stated to inherit his memory and his attitudes, it's hard to see how you could argue otherwise.

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Plus, Shepard's kinda an idiot for thinking that everything is as simple as "Renegade=bad, Paragon=good"...

More like "Renegade = looks practical but ends up leading to eventual disaster, Paragon = works out much better in the long run." The Catalyst's solution to the synthetic problem was to try to prevent their creation. Shepard-AI's will be to treat them as people, punish organics or synthetics who try to start a war over nothing, and to accelerate synthetics' development.

AlexMBrennan wrote...
What's more, since someone has mentioned it earlier, player/Shepard's agency does not extend past the end; choosing to put an AI based on Shepard in charge is not fundamentally different from any other choice Shepard made during his lifetime (e.g. Udina or Anderson for Councillor). It is a choice made during Shepard's life which may (or may not) affect events after his death.

Again, the AI inherits Shepard's attitudes and his memories. It seems natural that it would also inherit his agency.

[The Heretic of Time]

kal_reegar wrote...

Besides the reapers were so powerful because their enemies weren't particulary developed
Give the turian and/or salarian and/or geth other thousand year, peace, prosperity and reapers tech, and they could become more powerful than the reapers themselves.

Assuming the reapers themselves don't continue developing and improving themselves. Which I find a rather empty assumption. We already see in the Control ending epilogue that Miranda and Oriana are studying a reaper. No doubt they're studying it, not only to improve their own tech, but to improve the reapers as well.

So, Shepard can't rule the galaxy indefinitly... he will have to find another solution for the "synthetics vs organics" problem. Synthesis, Harvesting, something new.

as destroy, control is not the solution.

How about using the reaper armada to smash every damn synthetic that even dares to rebel against organics? Sounds like a fine solution to me.

In both scenario the galaxy will have to find a new balance. The only diffence is how it will be obtained: from above or from below.

The balance in Control is rather easily found. Shepard with his reaper armada will restore the balance, he said so himself in the Control epilogue. How can Control Shepard achieve balance? Easy. Simply Smas every damn fool who dares to start a war, be it a rebelling synthetic or an ignorant organic. Shepalyst has a whole army of reapers at his command to do this. Piece of cake.

[Twinzam.V]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Destroy is a Renegade decision. I've always said that. Completely eradicate risk X, even if you must sacrifice Y for it. The logic is 100% Renegade.

In its themes, however, Destroy is a Paragon decision. It affirms the traditional view of life, it destroys the unnatural abominations, it affirms the freedom and integrity of organic life against the domination and intrusion of machines. My personal problem is that these are all themes of the traditionalist Paragon, who is mainly concerned with affirming certain principles, while if I play Paragon, I'm of the pragmatic kind whose priority is to save most lives (Control), or of the idealist kind who wants to "redeem evil" (Synthesis). I (the player) am an anti-traditionalist radical, so even my most Paragon Shepards could never choose Destroy.

Sorry but the other options arent that better. Control seems like a rainbow peacefull solution in a short term but what about the future.
People will always rebel. The fact that shepard was human that now is in control of the most powerfull armada wont create suspicions in other races like the batarians for example.
Shepard that guy that abandoned batarian colonies to delay the reapers. Yep the batarians wont have any problem with that.
And if somehow they get their hands on a weapon capable of destroy the reapers what next.
Kill anyone related to that weapon? 
And if they respond with force then what, commit genocide for the greater good?

[KotorEffect3]

Control doesn't feel like a victory to me. And there is always the chance that down the road that Shepard decides that the first catalyst had the right idea after all. Besides do you want to have lunch on the citadel only to look out the window and see harbinger staring at you with his now blue glowing eyes?

[Costin_Razvan]

Besides do you want to have lunch on the citadel only to look out the window and see harbinger staring at you with his now blue glowing eyes?

How about Harbinger being the one serving lunch to you.

Shepard: Harbinger. I am assuming Direct Control!

Harbinger: But...

Payback's a **** sometimes isn't it?

[Twinzam.V]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Besides do you want to have lunch on the citadel only to look out the window and see harbinger staring at you with his now blue glowing eyes?

How about Harbinger being the one serving lunch to you.

Shepard: Harbinger. I am assuming Direct Control!

Harbinger: But...

Payback's a **** sometimes isn't it?

Little girl: I need someone to rescue my kitty.

Shepard: Harbinger. Assuming direct control.

Harbinger: Oh **** you Shepa....

Harbinger (direct control): Reaper beamzzzzz. BOOM

Little girl: MY KITTY!