1388 réponses à ce sujet

[Reofeir]

While I like control...control doesn't tell us anything in regards of how it will actually go. We know that the catalyst was pretty much deleted and replaced with this new AI based off Shepard's memories and thoughts. We also have dialogue that tells us that Shepard is either now a protector or the ruler. And in each case it can land anywhere in the spectrum of good or bad for the people. We do not know how the galaxy will turn out after this. This might be why many don't pick control as it is the biggest "What if?!" of the choices. You really do not know if you just doomed the galaxy again or saved it. At least with destroy you know that everyone, for the most part, are saved from the reapers and it is a post-war era with the loss of AI.

[Bill Casey]

It's wrong in and of itself...
You don't make an omnipotent being in your own image out of a brainwashed army of desecrated corpses...
No, that's a bad Shepard...

Most people think it's worse than the nuclear option that is Destroy...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 décembre 2012 - 08:21 .

[Reofeir]

Every choice is a little "wrong" though. It just depends on if you actually *care* about that wrong or think it's necessary.
Refuse- Didn't use a item due to your own judgement that made the entire galaxy die.
Control- Controlling dead corpses and putting the galaxy in the hands of an AI of yourself.
Destroy- Destroying all synthetics.
Synthesis- Changing everyone in a dramatic way

Each one also has it's benefits (maybe not including refuse). The "it's wrong" thought process...I don't see that being anything to point out. There's a lot of other things you an however! Like already discussed unpredictability of Synthetic Shepard.

Modifié par Zenor, 22 décembre 2012 - 08:22 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

With the inconvenient little detail that Control!Shep says it's guided by the thoughts of the original Shepard. I'd say that rules out something like the Reaper cycles.

Well that settles that.  Because you're clearly unbiased.

Because I think the original Shepard would never restart the Reaper cycle? I mean, how much more out-of-character can you get?

the original shepard would not do it - that is certain. the new ai is based on shepards thoughts and memories ... and therefore, shepards determination to get the job done.

i think the question is: "how far will the shep-ai go, to fullfill its purpose (protect the many)?"

I'd think that would depend on what the original Shepard was willing to do to get the job done, wouldn't it? Which is why I don't have many concerns about Paragon Control.

[The Heretic of Time]

Rifneno wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

*shrug* While otherwise mostly taking Rifneno's side, I think the geth are dead in the Destroy ending.

I'm not saying they aren't.  I'm saying that the negative parts of our choices are only implied rather than directly shown.  Which is why we don't see Shepbinger harvesting Palaven.

The Shepard Catalyst won't harvest Palaven because he won't continue the cycle. We know this for a fact because of the Grandpa Stargazer scene. If Shepalyst continued the cycle, we wouldn't see Grandpa Stargazer telling his story about Shepard in the final scene.

[Madecologist]

In the end I don't trust Shepard with that much power and my Shepard probably would trust himself either (it was the angle I took the most with the IM). So that is why I can't choose control. Oddly enough a more Renegade Shep of mine might be more tempted at the thought of becoming a God-Emperor of sorts, but alas my more Renegade Sheps are more likely to say screw it to the Geth and EDI and just go with the no-brainer of Destroy.

Modifié par Madecologist, 22 décembre 2012 - 08:27 .

[Dr_Extrem]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

With the inconvenient little detail that Control!Shep says it's guided by the thoughts of the original Shepard. I'd say that rules out something like the Reaper cycles.

Well that settles that.  Because you're clearly unbiased.

Because I think the original Shepard would never restart the Reaper cycle? I mean, how much more out-of-character can you get?

the original shepard would not do it - that is certain. the new ai is based on shepards thoughts and memories ... and therefore, shepards determination to get the job done.

i think the question is: "how far will the shep-ai go, to fullfill its purpose (protect the many)?"

I'd think that would depend on what the original Shepard was willing to do to get the job done, wouldn't it? Which is why I don't have many concerns about Paragon Control.

even a paragon did its job - we all ended up on the citadel. even your paragon killed in cold blood and your paragon would do anything possible to protect the weak.

the new shep-ai has all possibilities at hand though. it can do what ever it sees fitting to fullfill its purpose - the epilogue is clear ... it will fullfill its purpose, to honor the sacrifices, that were made.

and despite being lead by sheps memories and thoughts, it is something new - as stated in the epilogue.


this ending is vague - just like the others.

[Reofeir]

I do not think Shepard would continue the harvest at all. I do, however, think there's a chance he will believe something is "bad" and must be destroyed (because he thinks that or for 'protection of the galaxy'). If that happens to be, goddess forbid, asari, for instance, Shepard would do everything to destroy them for "peace" or because he just wants to.

[Bill Casey]

Zenor wrote...

Every choice is a little "wrong" though.

Every choice bar refuse is very very very wrong, and makes Shepard a complete monster...
The difference is in Control, the monster is omnipotent, and seems to be in love with the choice...

The "it's wrong" thought process...I don't see that being anything to point out.

Yeah, we shouldn't point out the ethics of it in a trilogy about ethics...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 décembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[Iakus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

With the inconvenient little detail that Control!Shep says it's guided by the thoughts of the original Shepard. I'd say that rules out something like the Reaper cycles.

Well that settles that.  Because you're clearly unbiased.

Because I think the original Shepard would never restart the Reaper cycle? I mean, how much more out-of-character can you get?

the original shepard would not do it - that is certain. the new ai is based on shepards thoughts and memories ... and therefore, shepards determination to get the job done.

i think the question is: "how far will the shep-ai go, to fullfill its purpose (protect the many)?"

Yes, that's the question. There is a risk. However, if you get the epilogue "I will ensure that all get a say in their future", can you really connect that to "Evil Reaper Emperor 2.0"? There will be some "necessary evil", because no rulership has ever done without that, but destroying what it wants to protect doesn't appear to be on the table. 

The Shepard AI no longer has any connection to organics.  It's simply run by directives and guided by the ememories of a dead man/woman.

If the Shepard AI put it to a vote "should the krogan be exterminated to protect the rest of the galaxy?" and teh vote didn't go the krogan's way, even if it was 51-49%, I am certain that the Reaper fleets would exterminate the krogan "for the good of the many" with nary a blink.  The krogan had their say.  And their deaths were for the good of the galaxy.  No hesitation, no remorse.  Protect the many.

And if the situation ever came up again, do the exact same thing.

[The Heretic of Time]

Madecologist wrote...

In the end I don't trust Shepard with that much power and my Shepard probably would trust himself either (it was the angle I took the most with the IM). So that is why I can't choose control. Oddly enough a more Renegade Shep of mine might be more tempted at the thought of becoming a God-Emperor of sorts, but alas my more Renegade Sheps are more like to say screw it to the Geth and EDI and just got with the no-brainer of Destroy.

My first Renegade Shepard went with Control even the geth were already destroyed back on Rannoch. Really, the only thing he would lose in the Destroy ending was EDI, yet he still went with Control because that's what TIM wanted and that's what I wanted as well.

My Renegade Shepard would have sided with TIM if the game gave us this option. Alas, we didn't get this option. Choosing the Control ending was the closest thing to siding with TIM in ME3. I'm sure TIM would have been proud of my Shepard after he chose Control. Poor TIM, I'll miss you buddy.  *tear in eye*

[Dr_Extrem]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

*shrug* While otherwise mostly taking Rifneno's side, I think the geth are dead in the Destroy ending.

I'm not saying they aren't.  I'm saying that the negative parts of our choices are only implied rather than directly shown.  Which is why we don't see Shepbinger harvesting Palaven.

The Shepard Catalyst won't harvest Palaven because he won't continue the cycle. We know this for a fact because of the Grandpa Stargazer scene. If Shepalyst continued the cycle, we wouldn't see Grandpa Stargazer telling his story about Shepard in the final scene.

even that is not sure ... maybe the new shep-ai harvested only the turians, because they started to become a threat to the rest of the galaxy.


the stargazer scene has to be taken with a grain of salt ... we do not know who the stargazer is and what happens in his time.


lots of speculaions for everyone.

[clennon8]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

I've posted this before.  In this very thread, I believe.  Let's examine the options:
A) Vaporize yourself.
Vaporize yourself.
C) Shoot a tube.

Yeah, Shepard *might* die as a consequence of shooting the tube, especially since Bioware decided to dramatize the cinematic by having him stupidly walk right up to the tube as he's shooting it, but he might live.  

You're deliberately leaving out vital context.

In Control Shepard knows he will die. He has been told this by the Starchild. But he also knows why he has to die, why he has to place his hands on the control rods. Shepard has to place his hands on the rods to upload himself to the reapers collective consiousness. His corporal form will vanish, but his mind will in charge of the reapers.

Whether you trust the Starchild on this is your choice, but at least we know what is supposed to happen, we know WHY we're placing our hands on the control rods and we know WHY we have to die.

Same can be said for Synthesis, although jumping into a beam is a bit more far-fetched than placing your hands on 2 control rods, I agree. Still, we know what happens and we know why we have to do it.

Thank you for allowing me the choice to not believe the Catalyst.  In turn, I'll allow you the choice to foolishly believe him.  But I won't stop telling you what a fool you are.

Pro-Control and Pro-Synthesis continue to remind me of religion.  There's far too much faith and not enough rationality.

However, the same cannot be said for Destroy. Why the f*ck are we shooting an explosive tube on the Citadel? How does this activate the Crucible? And how is this supposed to destroy the reapers? The Starchild doesn't tell us any of this. All we know that we have to shoot a tube, the thing explodes and all of the sudden the Crucible fires and the reapers are deactivated (yes, DEACTIVATED, they're not even completely destroyed). How the hell does this work? It almost seems like magic.  And why does the Starchild not explain us how Destroy works? He explains us how Control and Synthesis works. In both of the endings we know what we can expect and we know why Shepard has to die. The same can't be said for Destroy.

Deception Theory explains the "shooting the tube" thing quite nicely.

Modifié par clennon8, 22 décembre 2012 - 08:32 .

[Reofeir]

I meant to say that in discussing about what is wrong with control itself one should call it the bad choice just because it has a moral ethic as each of the other choices have moral ethic problems. You can always say that's a reason why you don't choose it, but for making the choice bad itself I'd rather hear things like "the possible chances he can go rouge" or "the ending is very unpredictable". As I said I do not see the line "it's a wrong choice" by itself enough to say it's a bad choice.

(I am not very clear in my statements, as you have noticed.)

[The Heretic of Time]

iakus wrote...

The Shepard AI no longer has any connection to organics.  It's simply run by directives and guided by the ememories of a dead man/woman.

If the Shepard AI put it to a vote "should the krogan be exterminated to protect the rest of the galaxy?" and teh vote didn't go the krogan's way, even if it was 51-49%, I am certain that the Reaper fleets would exterminate the krogan "for the good of the many" with nary a blink.  The krogan had their say.  And their deaths were for the good of the galaxy.  No hesitation, no remorse.  Protect the many.

And if the situation ever came up again, do the exact same thing.

Not likely.

"To give the many hope for a future."

"To ensure all  have a voice in the future."

"I will protect and sustain. I will act as guardian for the many."

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 22 décembre 2012 - 08:32 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

even a paragon did its job - we all ended up on the citadel. even your paragon killed in cold blood and your paragon would do anything possible reasonable to protect the weak.

That's more accurate.

Dr_Extrem wrote...the new shep-ai has all possibilities at hand though. it can do what ever it sees fitting to fullfill its purpose - the epilogue is clear ... it will fullfill its purpose, to honor the sacrifices, that were made.

[Sincerity] Yep. Nothing sinister here [/Sincerity]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

and despite being lead by sheps memories and thoughts, it is something new - as stated in the epilogue.

I still consider that to be an example of autodialogue. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's something new. It's still something that grew around what Shepard was. If it conducts itself in the same manner Shepard conducted himself, I see nothing to fear.

Dr_Extrem wrote...
this ending is vague - just like the others.

I don't really feel like making the jump from 'the entire future history of the galaxy wasn't outlined' to 'Shepard will go crazy and kill everyone.'

iakus wrote...

The Shepard AI no longer has any connection
to organics.  It's simply run by directives and guided by the ememories
of a dead man/woman.

If the Shepard AI put it to a vote "should
the krogan be exterminated to protect the rest of the galaxy?" and teh
vote didn't go the krogan's way, even if it was 51-49%, I am certain
that the Reaper fleets would exterminate the krogan "for the good of the
many" with nary a blink.  The krogan had their say.  And their deaths
were for the good of the galaxy.  No hesitation, no remorse.  Protect
the many.

And if the situation ever came up again, do the exact same thing.

Really? I have no doubt the Shepard AI would conduct negotians, selectively destroy any force attacking unarmed civilians, sabotage any genophage-like attempts, and eventually bring things to a peaceful conclusion. That's what being guided by Shepard's thoughts and memories is all about.

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 22 décembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[Dysjong]

Which makes the ending fine, some slides and dialog, combine it with any fans idea about what happende afterwards.

Im cool with that.

[Madecologist]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

My first Renegade Shepard went with Control even the geth were already destroyed back on Rannoch. Really, the only thing he would lose in the Destroy ending was EDI, yet he still went with Control because that's what TIM wanted and that's what I wanted as well.

My Renegade Shepard would have sided with TIM if the game gave us this option. Alas, we didn't get this option. Choosing the Control ending was the closest thing to siding with TIM in ME3. I'm sure TIM would have been proud of my Shepard after he chose Control. Poor TIM, I'll miss you buddy.  *tear in eye*

Heh, I always thought Renegade Sheps to be more interesting psychologically speaking.

When you take the ends justify the means or at any cost approach of doing things, it is interesting to see what those things will actually be. Do you agree with TIM or Cerberus' original true goals? How do you see the aliens? Where do you see humanity should stand in the galaxy? These all suddenly become very interesting questions to ask from a Renegade Shep. A "pure" Paragon Shep would give very expected answers.

This doesn't mean paragon heavy Sheps can't have interesting moral quandries (especially when tough choices are involved). But I find Renegade Sheps 'different schools of thoughts' can be very interesting. That said I tend to play more Paragon Sheps at the end of the day.

Modifié par Madecologist, 22 décembre 2012 - 08:35 .

[The Heretic of Time]

clennon8 wrote...

Thank you for allowing me the choice to not believe the Catalyst.  In turn, I'll allow you the choice to foolishly believe him.  But I won't stop telling you what a fool you are.

Pro-Control and Pro-Synthesis continue to remind me of religion.  There's far too much faith and not enough rationality.

And how is Pro-Destroy any different? There is as much faith in that choice as well.

How do you know you will survive after shooting that explosive tube that isn't even connected to the Crucible in any way or form?

How do you know that shooting the explosive tube will deactivate the reapers?

How do you know the reapers will stay deactivated forever? Who says the can't reactivate and start reaping again?


If you don't trust the Catalyst, you should pick Refuse. But you didn't pick Refuse, which means you too trusted the Catalyst speaking the truth about the options.

So please, don't be a hypocrite.

Deception Theory explains the "shooting the tube" thing quite nicely.

Headcanon and fanon has no place in this discussion.

[clennon8]

My point, oh Dense One, is that it requires a lot more faith to wilfully vaporize yourself than it does to shoot a tube. Especially when the two "vaporize yourself" options happen to leave the Reapers alive and align themselves very, very closely with things you've opposed for 99.9% of the narrative.

Also, this entire effing thread is nothing but headcanon and fanon. That's all any of us are left with.

[Dr_Extrem]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

even a paragon did its job - we all ended up on the citadel. even your paragon killed in cold blood and your paragon would do anything possible reasonable to protect the weak.

That's more accurate.

Dr_Extrem wrote...the new shep-ai has all possibilities at hand though. it can do what ever it sees fitting to fullfill its purpose - the epilogue is clear ... it will fullfill its purpose, to honor the sacrifices, that were made.

[Sincerity] Yep. Nothing sinister here [/Sincerity]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

and despite being lead by sheps memories and thoughts, it is something new - as stated in the epilogue.

I still consider that to be an example of autodialogue. But for the sake of argument, let's say it's something new. It's still something that grew around what Shepard was. If it conducts itself in the same manner Shepard conducted himself, I see nothing to fear.

Dr_Extrem wrote...
this ending is vague - just like the others.

I don't really feel like making the jump from 'the entire future history of the galaxy wasn't outlined' to 'Shepard will go crazy and kill everyone.'

i did not jump to this conclusion ... i just do not turn a blind eye on the possibility, that even a paragon shep-ai could do reasonable, if questionable things to make sure, that its purpose is fullfilled.

if you can headcanon your paragon shepard to be the ultimate and perfect protector, i am allowed to see the problems as well.


the question is still there .. how will shepard make sure, that everyone will have a say? ...

lets construct a little problem: 
the salarians uplift the yagh - the rest of the galaxy does not like it, because the yagh go on a killing spree.
what would the shep-ai do? ... indoctrinate the salarians not to uplift the yagh in the first place?
kill the yagh, before they cause enormous damage? punish the salarians for uplifting them?

this would cause conflicts between the different mandates of the catalyst. the few (yagh) should have a voice and can not be blamed for being uplifted but they cause damage to the many. the many, deserve protection form the few - this violates the premise, that the few need to have a voice. the salarians are part of the many but caused the problem in the first place. it gets complicated.


reasonable has a lot of meanings ...

autodialogue is not an excuse ...

[Bill Casey]

Zenor wrote...

I meant to say that in discussing about what is wrong with control itself one should call it the bad choice just because it has a moral ethic as each of the other choices have moral ethic problems. You can always say that's a reason why you don't choose it, but for making the choice bad itself I'd rather hear things like "the possible chances he can go rouge" or "the ending is very unpredictable". As I said I do not see the line "it's a wrong choice" by itself enough to say it's a bad choice.

(I am not very clear in my statements, as you have noticed.)

No...
I base choices on which is the least unethical...
Which inevitably leads me to switching back and forth between refuse and destroy...

That's how ****ed up the ending choices are...
I don't think anyone should be comfortable with their FVT choice...
The fact that the Shepalyst is greatly disturbs me...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 décembre 2012 - 08:53 .

[Madecologist]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Thank you for allowing me the choice to not believe the Catalyst.  In turn, I'll allow you the choice to foolishly believe him.  But I won't stop telling you what a fool you are.

Pro-Control and Pro-Synthesis continue to remind me of religion.  There's far too much faith and not enough rationality.

And how is Pro-Destroy any different? There is as much faith in that choice as well.

How do you know you will survive after shooting that explosive tube that isn't even connected to the Crucible in any way or form?

How do you know that shooting the explosive tube will deactivate the reapers?

How do you know the reapers will stay deactivated forever? Who says the can't reactivate and start reaping again?


If you don't trust the Catalyst, you should pick Refuse. But you didn't pick Refuse, which means you too trusted the Catalyst speaking the truth about the options.

So please, don't be a hypocrite.

Deception Theory explains the "shooting the tube" thing quite nicely.

Headcanon and fanon has no place in this discussion.

I agree. When discussing Lore you got stick with what we get from initial sources. Also it is true all three endings requires you to 'trust' the Catalyst on some level.

Now before I upset anyone understand I mean trust in a very loose way. You have to trust that the solutions it presents to you are real and they will have the results it tells you it will have. You can distrust on its motivations, you can think it is an insane AI. You can believe its philosophies are wrong and that is full of s***. However to believe that any of the three choices will result in what it says you must at least believe its veracity in that matter.

In short a person can disbelieve everything else it says, but you have to atleast believe the choices are real for you to be able to choose any of them (even destroy). IT does offer an alternative interrpertation and its own solutions but I am not IT proponent and such my statements is made in the none IT model of the endings.

If you completely don't believe a single thing the Catalyst says and don't believe in IT, than all three choices can be a lie. Synthesis could merely have you jump into the beam and die, Control has you fry yourself (it may or may not have Shepard's memories be 'copied' but it might just be as something as simple as they know how you think so they now know how to deal with other 'badasses' in future cycles better). Destroy might just be the fall to plan where you blow yourself and the connection of the Crucible to the Citadel up. Sure it causes some damage but atleast the threats are taken care of.

Obviously as players we do see what happens after, so we get to choose with Hindsight that the Catalyst was giving us these choices, but... at the moment you stand there... all three choices can be a big fat lie!

Edit - Comments added to factor a consideration to the IT model of interperting the endings.

Modifié par Madecologist, 22 décembre 2012 - 09:47 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

i did not jump to this conclusion ... i just do not turn a blind eye on the possibility, that even a paragon shep-ai could do reasonable, if questionable things to make sure, that its purpose is fullfilled.

As long as those things continue to follow the pattern established by Shepard in life, I have no issue with that.

Dr_Extrem wrote...

lets construct a little problem: 
the salarians uplift the yagh - the rest of the galaxy does not like it, because the yagh go on a killing spree.
what would the shep-ai do? ... indoctrinate the salarians not to uplift the yagh in the first place?
kill the yagh, before they cause enormous damage? punish the salarians for uplifting them?

this would cause conflicts between the different mandates of the catalyst. the few (yagh) should have a voice and can not be blamed for being uplifted but they cause damage to the many. the many, deserve protection form the few - this violates the premise, that the few need to have a voice. the salarians are part of the many but caused the problem in the first place. it gets complicated.

Complicated, to be sure. To answer your question, it would depend on a lot of variables. If the Shepard AI learned about the scheme prior to completion, probably go to the Coucil or other authority figures and try to get a consensus of some sort going. If it started looking bad - Cerberus bad - a precision strike against the uplifting facilities might be involved. If it happened only afterward, I imagine the solution would be to punish the specific yahg known to have harmed someone else or proven to be conspiring to do such. I doubt the salarians would be punished by Shepard anymore than the asari were for hiding the beacon or the salarians for modifying the genophage and trying to sabotage the cure. The galaxy would just have to learn to get along - and that would include the uplifted yahg.

So, yeah, I imagine the Paragon Shepard AI would follow the basic Paragon principles: help everyone you can, avoid hurting innocents, minimize dead species, try negotiation rather than force where possible.

[Ieldra]

iakus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

With the inconvenient little detail that Control!Shep says it's guided by the thoughts of the original Shepard. I'd say that rules out something like the Reaper cycles.

Well that settles that.  Because you're clearly unbiased.

Because I think the original Shepard would never restart the Reaper cycle? I mean, how much more out-of-character can you get?

the original shepard would not do it - that is certain. the new ai is based on shepards thoughts and memories ... and therefore, shepards determination to get the job done.

i think the question is: "how far will the shep-ai go, to fullfill its purpose (protect the many)?"

Yes, that's the question. There is a risk. However, if you get the epilogue "I will ensure that all get a say in their future", can you really connect that to "Evil Reaper Emperor 2.0"? There will be some "necessary evil", because no rulership has ever done without that, but destroying what it wants to protect doesn't appear to be on the table. 

The Shepard AI no longer has any connection to organics.  It's simply run by directives and guided by the ememories of a dead man/woman.

If the Shepard AI put it to a vote "should the krogan be exterminated to protect the rest of the galaxy?" and teh vote didn't go the krogan's way, even if it was 51-49%, I am certain that the Reaper fleets would exterminate the krogan "for the good of the many" with nary a blink.  The krogan had their say.  And their deaths were for the good of the galaxy.  No hesitation, no remorse.  Protect the many.

And if the situation ever came up again, do the exact same thing.

You're sure of it? Why? As if even a human-level intellect wouldn't know that some things aren't up for a popular vote. If Control!Shep is guided by Paragon Shepard's value's, then it will place a value on the continued existence of any one species, and it will only take drastic measures to prevent a greater disaster.

To get a little more philosophical, consider the the question: Can there exist a fully deterministic system of laws we would find acceptable if applied with no exceptions? If you think Control!Shepard is bound to do something like the above, then you're answering that question with "no". Likely you would argue that there is no compassion, no empathy and no sense of the value of, say, a single species or suchlike. I think all those can be bound into rules a fully rational but empathy-less entity could use to make decisions.