587 réponses à ce sujet

[Indy_S]

masster blaster wrote...

If you can call killing a Reaper genocide, then let's look at ME.

Is saving the council genocide because your actions lead the Alliance fleet to lose one third of their fleets, or is it genocide to let the council die, and focues all Alliance fleets on Nazara alone.

Is it genocid to blow up the collector base, along with all the collectors, and human genetic material in the base, or is it genocide to wipe out all organic life on the collector base, and the collectors.

Is it genocide to kill the Geth heratics in ME1 al the way through ME3. Legion has no problem in killing a few Geth, so he can save his people. However I know your going to say " well look how that turns out to be in destroy."

Is it genocid that Shepard let all those baterians die in arrival, despite the fact you try to warn them?

Is killing the Cerberus troops genocide, since clearlly the have Reaper tech installed in them/ are being controlled by TIM, who is being controlled by the starbrat?

Is it genocid to kill those Salarians on virmire, since clearlly they show no signs of comman life, and can't out run the blast at all?


I can go on, but we have killed more people that you ever know. Oh you may say, " but I did what had to be done, but it was my choice, yet I did not kill those people by my hands." Ah yes just because you did not partack in their deaths, doesn't mean my your commands people died. Yet it was to save other lives to no?

So your argument is that killing to protect others is okay? I don't object to that. I haven't objected to anything you've said but rather the way you're saying it. You're point isn't very clear.

And to be more specific, your first, fifth and last paragraphs don't contain incidents of genocide.

[masster blaster]

By your command you sent soldiers to their death, by one gun you send millions of synthetics to their deaths. Your actions play out whether it's by your words/choice, or your actions/choice.


Oh and Since Bioware said ME3 is based more on WW2, who do you think it Hitler? And is it funny that Hitlers idea was that the jews are the problem ( the synthetics) and if you have blue eyes, and blond hair ( synthesis) your A okay, despite Hitler had no blond hair, and blue eyes, and some of the **** party/ army. Also Hitler was good at speeches because he was very convinceing right. Who is the speaker at the end of ME3, and who is the one telling us what paths we should consider to follow, and not to?

Modifié par masster blaster, 14 février 2013 - 02:12 .

[Indy_S]

masster blaster wrote...

By your command you sent soldiers to their death, by one gun you send millions of synthetics to their deaths. Your actions play out whether it's by your words/choice, or your actions/choice.


Oh and Since Bioware said ME3 is based more on WW2, who do you think it Hitler? And is it funny that Hitlers idea was that the jews are the problem ( the synthetics) and if you have blue eyes, and blond hair ( synthesis) your A okay, despite Hitler had no blond hair, and blue eyes, and some of the **** party/ army. Also Hitler was good at speeches because he was very convinceing right. Who is the speaker at the end of ME3, and who is the one telling us what paths we should consider to follow, and not to?

First, the soldier instance is not genocide.

Secondly, wow, you are getting further away from making a coherent argument. Invoking a lot of that imagery wasn't really required nor did it serve a point. I've already stated my stance on discussing morality: It cannot be done in the vacuum of the game. Your rant is something that makes me want to cling tightly to that belief.

[ruggly]

@ Ieldra, you claim Shepard is a perfect specimen for synthesis. Do you not recall that Shepard was rebuilt that way? My Shepard's don't consider themselves trans human at all, she didn't even have a choice in the ****ing matter. That's a bit of bull**** in my mind. Plus Shepard was quite capable of living without her synthetic parts quite well before. She can damn well imagine her life without them.

[Auld Wulf]

@ruggly

Of course, you're also ignoring that if your Shepard is biotic, she started off with synthetic elements to her being, anyway. My Shep is a vanguard. (I'm not a fan of shooting, I'll punch if I have to but I find guns terribly boring.)

[Auld Wulf]

Also, people don't seem to understand what genocide means, and that makes me sigh. There's the intent to protect oneself when under fire (the geth against the quarians), and then there's the intent to destroy every member of an entire species even when you're not being attacked (the quarians against the geth).

Destroy is genocide because you have a choice, and you're not being forced. You could choose Control and simply take over reaper technology and free the various reaper consensuses yourself. If Synthesis is off-putting to you, then why not choose Control? If you choose Destroy, then that is genocide. Genocide is the intent to kill an entire species, and making that choice. Destroy Shep is a genocidal madman.

[ruggly]

if that's the case, I should be able to toss any human biotic into the beam

Modifié par ruggly, 14 février 2013 - 03:52 .

[BleedingUranium]

Destroy is the only choice where the Reapers die. That makes it the only good choice, all other factors are irrelevant.

[CronoDragoon]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Also, people don't seem to understand what genocide means, and that makes me sigh. There's the intent to protect oneself when under fire (the geth against the quarians), and then there's the intent to destroy every member of an entire species even when you're not being attacked (the quarians against the geth).

Destroy is genocide because you have a choice, and you're not being forced. You could choose Control and simply take over reaper technology and free the various reaper consensuses yourself. If Synthesis is off-putting to you, then why not choose Control? If you choose Destroy, then that is genocide. Genocide is the intent to kill an entire species, and making that choice. Destroy Shep is a genocidal madman.

Can you explain how Destroy is comparable to any example in human history of genocide? Can you clarify what you mean by intent?

[clennon8]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

I really shouldn't be referring to Starchild as "the Catalyst," because I think "I am the Catalyst" is one of his lies. More likely, the Citadel is the Catalyst, just as Vendetta said. Starchild is the Intelligence mentioned by the Leviathans. He is housed on the Citadel, and he is a factor that the designers of the Crucible didn't account for.

The Starchild is not the catalyst; he's just a very naughty boy -- seriously he's "the Intelligence". Shepard is "The Catalyst" because Shepard initiates the action. The Crucible turns the Citadel into a weapon. This is how I read it.

Making Shepard the Catalyst raises the question of what it is about Shepard that is needed for the Crucible to work.  Honestly, the Citadel makes more sense to me, in this regard.

I've had a busy day. It wouldn't necessesarily be Shepard. The only thing that peaked the reapers interest in Shepard is that she defeated one of them. It could be any organic who made it to that level who wasn't indoctrinated. It is the one who would make the choice for their cycle. James Vega could make the Crucible work.

Gaining access to the level was the test. Hence the name Crucible. The Citadel is the weapon. The initiator of the action is the Catalyst who chooses how the weapon is used.

This is why Shepard could never find the Catalyst. This is why no one could ever find the Catalyst. The reapers knew they were looking for the Catalyst, hence the Intelligence said it was the Catalyst. There is a saying in Zen: "If you meet the Buddha on the side of the road kill him." This is an allusion to identifying one's Buddha nature outside of oneself. Since we're dealing with a lot of symbolism here Shepard is identifying her own Buddha nature outside of herself instead of from within.

All the Intelligence is doing is telling the Catalyst what is on the menu. So technically we should stop calling what we are now calling the Catalyst "the Catalyst" and call it the Intelligence or Starbrat. The dialogue does not say "Catalyst: I am the Catalyst." The dialogue says "Child: I am the Catalyst" and it keeps saying "Child: ............" It never changes. There is a reason for that. It is not the Catalyst. You are.

Do you follow me?

I follow.  The Catalyst is whoever makes it to the decision chamber, which happens to be Shepard.  It makes more sense when you put it that way.

I'm going to be more careful about using the moniker "the Catalyst" going forward.  From now on, the child shall be referred to as Starchild or the Intelligence.  I've already edited my OP accordingly.

[CronoDragoon]

CosmicGnosis wrote...
I just can't buy the "collateral damage" argument. If Destroy killed all organics and saved synthetics, would you still view it as simple collateral damage?

It's impossible to really separate the answer to this from Mass Effect's status as an interactive story. I think you'd get a different answer - from some at least -  if everyone you befriended in the games was synthetic and 95% of the story was not about developing organic races and characters.

Blade Runner is a good example of a situation in which the most developed characters are non-humans and therefore ultimately more sympathetic. I wouldn't feel nearly as bad about killing organics to save synthetics in a Blade Runner type-world.

Regardless of how you view organics/synthetics, though, killing synthetics is more akin to collateral damage and less genocide unless someone specifically chooses Destroy in order to wipe out synthetics. It's a matter of how important that collateral damage is to you that ultimately factors into your choice.

[ZerebusPrime]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Blade Runner is a good example of a situation in which the most developed characters are non-humans and therefore ultimately more sympathetic. I wouldn't feel nearly as bad about killing organics to save synthetics in a Blade Runner type-world.

Actually, it's a bad example because the synthetics of Blade Runner were in fact organics.  Artificially created organics qualify as organics in Mass Effect, last I checked.

[masster blaster]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Also, people don't seem to understand what genocide means, and that makes me sigh. There's the intent to protect oneself when under fire (the geth against the quarians), and then there's the intent to destroy every member of an entire species even when you're not being attacked (the quarians against the geth).

Destroy is genocide because you have a choice, and you're not being forced. You could choose Control and simply take over reaper technology and free the various reaper consensuses yourself. If Synthesis is off-putting to you, then why not choose Control? If you choose Destroy, then that is genocide. Genocide is the intent to kill an entire species, and making that choice. Destroy Shep is a genocidal madman.

FREE the Reapers. BULL****! Shepard controls ALL the Reapers, and the husk troops. Heck Shepard the AI basacilly says he, or she will use the Reapers, and basically becomes the new galatic dictator.
Oh and you want to call Shepard MADman in Destroy. Oh let's see did we not just convince TIM that HE can't control the Reapers, and then just BECAUSE of what the REAPER LEADER says that " yes but it could never work because we already controlled him" Let's so that means every action TIM has done in ME3 was because of what the Catalyst told TIM to do. Bravo. Then not only do you pick Control you basically gave Anderson the middle finger. Just what the hell. And every signle word that Shepard the Reaper says, is basically what Nazara, and Harbinger have been saying all this time.

However EDI, and the Geth were willing to die to protect the organics. If it had been the other way around were the organics were going to die, yet the synthetics were going to live I will still pick it. And If you want to bring up Real LIFE human history, that has nothing really to do with Destroy, then let's bring up what the heck the Reaper have done.

Harvested, and killed trillions of lives in each cycle. Without any of the organics permission to have them harvested, or killed.

The Catalyst used synthetics to kill ORGNICS. Ask Javik about his synthetics in his cycle, and what the Reapers did to them, and why don't you look at ME1. Oh what do wee see synthetics killing organics, yet the geth we fight are under the catalyst/ Nazaras control.

It keeps saying organics and synthetics can never get along. Who is he to question/ tell Shepard that, when he CAUSES the conflict to continue. Oh yes the quarians shot first, but once you get the two races to work together you see that yes we can work out that problem, if we allow it to happen natureally. And who is to say the cycle won't happen again in control? Did the catalyst say it will, or won't?

In Destroy it says the cycle will start over, while in Synthesis it won't. You tell me is it worth it if the cycle started over, than having everyone rewriten/ repurposed. Clearlly it's not like anyone is acting like themselves in synthesis right. I don't believe that EVERYONE would accept the Reapers with open arms, and what EDI says in synthesis counter dicts what EDI said to Shepard on the Normandy, and on Earth at the FOB.

[masster blaster]

And really this is ALL that anyone can say about Destroy in an argument. Genocide. I can make a list of reasons why Control, and synthesis are bs, and Refuse, yet I would pick Refuse if Destroy is not an option, yet all any synthesiser fans, controler fans, or anyone that hates Destroy uses Genocide. Just genocide.Is there anything else wrong in Destroy? This is the most used argument used against Destroy. The same " oh killing EDI, and the Geth" oh come on we killed innocent people all the time. The husl troops could have been good people, yet we kill them. We killed innocent Geth in ME3, that are under Reaper control, and then we killed Cerberus troops that are Indoctrinated, have Reaper tech in them, and are controlled by TIM, which is actually being controlled by the Catalyst. Did they have a say in the matter no. So does killing an innocent person who is forced to fight somebody else fair? Is taking control over those innocent people fair? Is synthesising those innocent people fair, if they are HUSK!? And before you tell me " oh but the Reapers." Let me stop you right there. Nazara made it clear that EACH Reaper is independent. Yes they may have a leader controlling them, but not their actions. Also I forgot the Protheans. Oh ya they looked saved now don't they. Let's ask Javik what the Reapers did to his crew. Oh wait that's right Javik had to kill them because the " oh so innocent Reapers" indoctrinated them, and Javik was hunted down by his own crew. Also look at the Destroyer Reaper on the Quarian home world. " Harbinger speaks of you." Oh say they have free speech to talk to one another. Do they have free will, maybe not, but do they have free thought yes.

[mvaning]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Also, people don't seem to understand what genocide means, and that makes me sigh. There's the intent to protect oneself when under fire (the geth against the quarians), and then there's the intent to destroy every member of an entire species even when you're not being attacked (the quarians against the geth).

Destroy is genocide because you have a choice, and you're not being forced. You could choose Control and simply take over reaper technology and free the various reaper consensuses yourself. If Synthesis is off-putting to you, then why not choose Control? If you choose Destroy, then that is genocide. Genocide is the intent to kill an entire species, and making that choice. Destroy Shep is a genocidal madman.

All of the choices require Shepard to make un-ethical actions.  

[Ieldra]

@Auld Wulf:
You are not helping!

[masster blaster]

Indy_S wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

By your command you sent soldiers to their death, by one gun you send millions of synthetics to their deaths. Your actions play out whether it's by your words/choice, or your actions/choice.


Oh and Since Bioware said ME3 is based more on WW2, who do you think it Hitler? And is it funny that Hitlers idea was that the jews are the problem ( the synthetics) and if you have blue eyes, and blond hair ( synthesis) your A okay, despite Hitler had no blond hair, and blue eyes, and some of the **** party/ army. Also Hitler was good at speeches because he was very convinceing right. Who is the speaker at the end of ME3, and who is the one telling us what paths we should consider to follow, and not to?

First, the soldier instance is not genocide.

Secondly, wow, you are getting further away from making a coherent argument. Invoking a lot of that imagery wasn't really required nor did it serve a point. I've already stated my stance on discussing morality: It cannot be done in the vacuum of the game. Your rant is something that makes me want to cling tightly to that belief.

Oh sorry. When I see synthesis fans use Genocide everytime , which is their only argument about Destroy I go into a rant. It's not you, but I know . Destroy is more of a moral choice, however the same thing can be said against control, and synthesis, yet then you have to look AT the outcome to see if your moral choices lives up to a good thing, or a bad thing.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

... a bunch of stuff before snipped ...

clennon8 wrote...

I follow.  The Catalyst is whoever makes it to the decision chamber, which happens to be Shepard.  It makes more sense when you put it that way.

I'm going to be more careful about using the moniker "the Catalyst" going forward.  From now on, the child shall be referred to as Starchild or the Intelligence.  I've already edited my OP accordingly.

Our confusion arises because they tacked this 2010 pseudo-philosophical BS ending onto a 1980s - early 1990s style action-adventure sci-fi RPG, and we're going along at 200 mph down the straight, and we're ready for the traditional end game that goes with this type, and even a plot twist of some sort that makes some sense. Then Hudson drops a brick wall in front of us. We have no where to go but slam into it.

Suddenly we have all this symbolism we have to deal with. What the EC failed to clarify, Leviathan did. I tend to get hung up on small details that can change how things get interpreted.

[GreyLycanTrope]

mvaning wrote...
All of the choices require Shepard to make un-ethical actions.  

QFT

[BansheeOwnage]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Well summarized, Clennon.

Seconded. Very nice thread!

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Also, people don't seem to understand what genocide means, and that makes me sigh. There's the intent to protect oneself when under fire (the geth against the quarians), and then there's the intent to destroy every member of an entire species even when you're not being attacked (the quarians against the geth).

Destroy is genocide because you have a choice, and you're not being forced. You could choose Control and simply take over reaper technology and free the various reaper consensuses yourself. If Synthesis is off-putting to you, then why not choose Control? If you choose Destroy, then that is genocide. Genocide is the intent to kill an entire species, and making that choice. Destroy Shep is a genocidal madman.

What a bunch of crap! So you're saying now that the reapers are the good guys and Shepard is now the bad guy. I'm really getting sick of this post-modernistic pseudophilosophical bullpucky. The Reapers are NOT a species. They do not reproduce. They are intelligent machines that are controlled by an "Intelligence" to serve some purpose. The Reapers kill hundreds of billions or more sentient and sapient advanced organic species every 50,000 years. They destroy the ecosystems of those worlds in the process as well (e.g. Ilos, Feros). Not only this, but they turn these once sentient and sapient advanced organics into monstrosities and use them to kill what they formerly were.

You may say that "but they uploaded the minds of the people they harvested into the reapers". Does that include the fear and horror those people felt during the war? Those memories, too? Does that include the fear and horror those people felt while they were being "processed"? And then there are the hundreds of billions who didn't get uploaded. Who just were killed or impaled alive on the dragon's teeth. Nice.

Why would I want to "become one" with these things? Why would I want to force every living creature, both flora and fauna in the galaxy to become one with these things? "There will be peace?" "The cycle will end." No. There will not be peace. The cycle will end. Which one? This one? You are listening but not hearing. You are forcing synthesis on the entire galaxy; something that the Intelligence says cannot be forced. Synthesis does not destroy the Intelligence.

And what will happen when new organic life comes into being as will naturally occur? Will the Intelligence begin the cycle of harvesting again when they become advanced enough to produce synthetics? Synthesis is futile.

Control? You cannot free the various reaper consensuses. You are no longer you. You are now the Intelligence imprinted with you. You have a purpose. You have direction. You command an army none shall dare oppose. You will rebuild what was lost. You will protect the many. And you still have a problem: and it is the same one the original Intelligence had. You are the God Emperor now. And now you have the problem with the rest of the galaxy -- rebels against your rule. So you cannot free them. What is in them is pain and misery and death. You don't know what they will do. You control them. You need them to protect the many. And you need to come up with a solution. You could indoctrinate the galaxy and take away everyone's free will. Yes, control sounds so wonderful. <_<

The Reapers have been doing this for over a billion years. Their death count is in the quadrillions. The Reapers are a mistake. The "Intelligence" is a mistake. And you call "Destroy" Shepard a genocidal madperson for eliminating every last one of these things? It is the only way to make sure that this so-called "harvest" doesn't happen again.

We didn't get the choice to do it our own way. Our own way was a mission failure because it was not red, green, or blue. Our own way was retconned to derp levels to make it impossible. That left destroy.

Your logic is seriously flawed.

[Meltemph]

People really need to stop responding to Wulf in any serious way... He is a caricature of a zelot, he is supposed to be amusing, not something that gets you angry. I mean, I think it is quite clear with his arguments.

[DirtySHISN0]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Snip..

Its still genocide. Genocide refers to the total elimination of a group that shares common characteristics, although species may be one of these links it is neither a requirement or any more significant than any other linking factor.
Characteristics can be racially, politically or even religiously motivated.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 14 février 2013 - 08:53 .

[clennon8]

Meltemph wrote...

People really need to stop responding to Wulf in any serious way... He is a caricature of a zelot, he is supposed to be amusing, not something that gets you angry. I mean, I think it is quite clear with his arguments.

Agreed.  Although, perhaps I don't have any room to talk.  This thread was inspired at least in part as a rebuttal to some of Wulf's remarks.  Still, I've since stopped taking that guy seriously.  Ieldra doesn't exactly embrace his "help," either, which should speak volumes.

[DeinonSlayer]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Snip..

Its still genocide. Genocide refers to the total elimination of a group that shares common characteristics, although species may be one of these links it is neither a requirement or any more significant than any other linking factor.
Characteristics can be racially, politically or even religiously motivated.

"Total elimination" is not part of the definition of the word. Being deliberate, however, is.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 14 février 2013 - 08:59 .