748 réponses à ce sujet

[Bleachrude]

cerberus1701 wrote...

Quote from SAK:

I killed them because of their survival at any cost attitude.

You think the Human race is any different? You think if aliens came here to wipe us out as a species that we wouldn't do what we had to do? That we wouldn't do the most vile, horrific things to them is that meant Humans survived and they didn't...or they ran home?

Please.

Good point....that said

Should be noted that we STILL hold **** collarborators in contempt and that Israel STILL maintains a "capture of kill any german that was a member of the SS" to this day.

Hell, notice the reaction when Southern states in the US try to honour their confederate ancestry....

[Ryzaki]

I accept the cost because it's the price to have the Reapers completely gone. (even if some wackjob tries to bring em back).

My Shep does believe the Geth are alive (which is why he sides with them during the Rannoch conflict so those Quarians warmongering pretty much got them exterminated for no reason. LOL gotta love senseless sacrifice) as well as EDI (he treats her the same as any other member of his crew). But they all were willing to give up their lives to stop the Reapers. And sadly that's what it took. He certainly wasn't happy about it and the guilt will tear him up inside but his choices were either destroy the Reapers at the cost of some of his allies or allow them to stay around in one form or another.

He'd picked the same choice even if it had been another organic species. The Reapers had to be stopped for all life's sake.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 11 mars 2013 - 05:48 .

[KBomb]

Just a curious question: How many people who oppose Destroy, save Admiral Koris instead of his men?

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't trust Legion as much as you do. He committed an act of espionage on my ship in the last game and lies to me repeatedly in this one. Still, metagaming that the Reaper code won't make the Geth go Rachni Breeder on us, if I can make peace, I will.

I never experienced the rachni breeder, so would not have that particular reason to worry.

It turns on you and kills off most of the Alliance Engineering Corps if you rescue it instead of telling Aralakh Company to withdraw.

Xilizhra wrote...

I believe there are offenses for which it is warranted. To avoid a prolonged discussion, I'll leave it at that.

...rewrite? Sorry. That's just wrong. A needle in the arm is more dignified.

You have oddly selective circumstances in which to care about the opinions of the ones you've condemned. Would you rather I mulch them into Reaper juice?

Selective? How so?

IMO, death is more dignified than any of that "Ministry of Love" bull****. I believe even the condemned have certain rights, and should be afforded a certain measure of dignity. You've spoken of using Reaper indoctrination to subdue troublemakers like Wreav. Assassination would be one thing, open conflict would be one thing, but screwing with people's brains is something completely different. Would you really support the lobotomization of prisoners in real life? Because that's basically what you're advocating.

I have no say over you or your playthroughs. But, put delicately, I read some of the things you talk about doing in Control, and it worries me sometimes.

[Xilizhra]

KBomb wrote...

Just a curious question: How many people who oppose Destroy, save Admiral Koris instead of his men?

Given that it's a necessary component for peace, it's vital in order to save at least one entire race. Similarly, Control or Synthesis is also vital to save at least one entire race.

[Xilizhra]

It turns on you and kills off most of the Alliance Engineering Corps if you rescue it instead of telling Aralakh Company to withdraw.

Ah, being a Paragon feels good.

IMO, death is more dignified than any of that "Ministry of Love" bull****. I believe even the condemned have certain rights, and should be afforded a certain measure of dignity. You've spoken of using Reaper indoctrination to subdue troublemakers like Wreav. Assassination would be one thing, open conflict would be one thing, but screwing with people's brains is something completely different. Would you really support the lobotomization of prisoners in real life? Because that's basically what you're advocating.

If necessary for rehabilitation, is it so much worse then spending idiotic amounts of money to keep them on death row before we finally get around to stabbing them to death? Granted, the techniques we have now are so crude that they don't do anything but cause further suffering, so right now, I don't support it, no.

I have no say over you or your playthroughs. But, put delicately, I read some of the things you talk about doing in Control, and it worries me sometimes.

Your multiple instances of genocide worry me too, so we're even.

[ghost9191]

eh i say just go with your choice and drop it....


pick destroy , but would welcome a destroy option without sacrificing the geth and edi . but i do see it as better of the three. That is my choice though

[Funkdrspot]

Bill Casey wrote...

Funkdrspot wrote...

Problem is that as the clone issue should demonstrate, PEOPLE  can be rebuilt to exact specifications but what makes us isn't JUST DNA but the impact that our memories, our experiences have on our future actions and decisions. Our wisdom.

This is why it would be dangerous to think you could recreate the geth or EDI and end up with the same results.

For all intents and purposes, you would be building their children...
Reproduction, if you will...

The issue still remains that they would have no experience, no memories, no culture and no context with which they could understand organic contact and the problem with processing self-awareness and the lack of understanding/communication is what led to every organic/synthetic confrontation

[Slayer299]

Killing EDI and the Geth is unfortunate, but this is to stop the Reapers. And in anycase, the Geth made their own bed when they chose to upload *Reaper Code* so they could be "individuals". So that washes any guilt for them getting wiped out, that pretty much leaves EDI and her I'd feel some loss for Joker.

[DeinonSlayer]

Xilizhra wrote...

IMO, death is more dignified than any of that "Ministry of Love" bull****. I believe even the condemned have certain rights, and should be afforded a certain measure of dignity. You've spoken of using Reaper indoctrination to subdue troublemakers like Wreav. Assassination would be one thing, open conflict would be one thing, but screwing with people's brains is something completely different. Would you really support the lobotomization of prisoners in real life? Because that's basically what you're advocating.

If necessary for rehabilitation, is it so much worse then spending idiotic amounts of money to keep them on death row before we finally get around to stabbing them to death? Granted, the techniques we have now are so crude that they don't do anything but cause further suffering, so right now, I don't support it, no.

I suggest re-reading the codex on indoctrination, specifically the mental degeneration it invariably causes. Look again at the Salarian "empties" on Virmire. Is your solution so much better?

Xilizhra wrote...

I have no say over you or your playthroughs. But, put delicately, I read some of the things you talk about doing in Control, and it worries me sometimes.

Your multiple instances of genocide worry me too, so we're even.

If you want to call it that. I think it's reasonable to question if the Rachni Queen was indoctrinated after spending so much time in proximity to Reaper tech, pumping out ravagers for them. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of the Reaper code after what happened with the IFF; to be suspicious of the Geth given their actions, or to believe they should be held accountable for them. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about Krogan intentions if the Genophage is cured, beyond what Wrex and Eve tell you (they could easily be usurped after the cure - Wrex's power base was built by controlling fertile females; the cure undermines that, since all are now fertile).

I frequently roleplay Shepards with morals which differ from my own; who do certain things I don't agree with (though there are boundaries there which even I won't cross - like murdering the salarian scientist researching the keepers in ME1, casual sex with Jack in ME2, or pressuring Vega into the same thing in the Citadel DLC). You won't see me arguing in favor of my FailShep shooting Padok Wiks in the back or accepting bribes. You do see me arguing for the Quarians over the Geth in instances where both cannot be saved because that is my stance; that is justice as I see it. Your views differ; I respect that.

By the sound of it, you do what you, personally, would do in your own playthroughs - every single one of them. There's nothing wrong with that. Just be aware that not everyone does the same.

[Bill Casey]

cerberus1701 wrote...

Quote from SAK:

I killed them because of their survival at any cost attitude.

You think the Human race is any different? You think if aliens came here to wipe us out as a species that we wouldn't do what we had to do? That we wouldn't do the most vile, horrific things to them is that meant Humans survived and they didn't...or they ran home?

Please.

According to EDI, ninety percent didn't even though indoctrination should have reduced that number to zero...

In fact some even fed reapers misinformation at the cost of their own lives to protect people who weren't friends or relatives...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 11 mars 2013 - 06:30 .

[JesseLee202]

Bill Casey wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

Quote from SAK:

I killed them because of their survival at any cost attitude.

You think the Human race is any different? You think if aliens came here to wipe us out as a species that we wouldn't do what we had to do? That we wouldn't do the most vile, horrific things to them is that meant Humans survived and they didn't...or they ran home?

Please.

According to EDI, ninety percent didn't even though indoctrination should have reduced that number to zero...

In fact some even fed reapers misinformation at the cost of their own lives to protect people who weren't friends or relatives...

Very good point... 

[Xilizhra]

I suggest re-reading the codex on indoctrination, specifically the mental degeneration it invariably causes. Look again at the Salarian "empties" on Virmire. Is your solution so much better?

The difference between that and lobotomizing prisoners is that the latter are already helpless and unable to do harm. Many leaders are in a position to do a great deal of harm indeed if not stopped.

If you want to call it that. I think it's reasonable to question if the Rachni Queen was indoctrinated after spending so much time in proximity to Reaper tech, pumping out ravagers for them. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of the Reaper code after what happened with the IFF; to be suspicious of the Geth given their actions, or to believe they should be held accountable for them. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about Krogan intentions if the Genophage is cured, beyond what Wrex and Eve tell you (they could easily be usurped after the cure - Wrex's power base was built by controlling fertile females; the cure undermines that, since all are now fertile).

If by "reasonable," you mean "could be reached by thought processes that aren't wholly insane," then I'll agree with you. I do, however, strongly disagree that any of those would be at all good decisions.

And yes. I do intend to make the galaxy a safer place than it had been hitherto, by whatever means are the best for the greatest number of people. Perhaps the geth will get extensive use here, as a means of redemption; they, after all, would have no fear of traveling aboard Reapers, and may provoke less fear in the populace than my own Collectors. (I refuse to retire them, although I'll concede to not using husks and other standard ground troops, as their designs are too inherently intimidating).

[KBomb]

Xilizhra wrote...

KBomb wrote...

Just a curious question: How many people who oppose Destroy, save Admiral Koris instead of his men?

Given that it's a necessary component for peace, it's vital in order to save at least one entire race. Similarly, Control or Synthesis is also vital to save at least one entire race.

You don't know saving his life is needed to garner peace between the geth and quarians going in. You only learn that after the fact.  I was asking what you chose on your first playthrough--before you knew how everything played out. Of course knowing the outcome will influence your decision.

In the beginning, all you're told is that he is needed to rally the civilian troops.

[Xilizhra]

KBomb wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

KBomb wrote...

Just a curious question: How many people who oppose Destroy, save Admiral Koris instead of his men?

Given that it's a necessary component for peace, it's vital in order to save at least one entire race. Similarly, Control or Synthesis is also vital to save at least one entire race.

You don't know saving his life is needed to garner peace between the geth and quarians going in. You only learn that after the fact.  I was asking what you chose on your first playthrough--before you knew how everything played out. Of course knowing the outcome will influence your decision.

In the beginning, all you're told is that he is needed to rally the civilian troops.

Given that no one else listens to Tali, Koris is the sole voice of reason in that stupid miniwar. It's not a particularly difficult concept to discern, that he'll be necessary to work out a ceasefire.

[KBomb]

Xilizhra wrote...

Given that no one else listens to Tali, Koris is the sole voice of reason in that stupid miniwar. It's not a particularly difficult concept to discern, that he'll be necessary to work out a ceasefire.

Well, that is only if you went in knowing that a circumstance was going to pop up that required him to call ceasefire. Metagaming isn't really what I was referring to.

Anyway, you're saying that sometimes you have to kill some to save many?

[Funkdrspot]

Bill Casey wrote...

cerberus1701 wrote...

Quote from SAK:

I killed them because of their survival at any cost attitude.

You think the Human race is any different? You think if aliens came here to wipe us out as a species that we wouldn't do what we had to do? That we wouldn't do the most vile, horrific things to them is that meant Humans survived and they didn't...or they ran home?

Please.

According to EDI, ninety percent didn't even though indoctrination should have reduced that number to zero...

In fact some even fed reapers misinformation at the cost of their own lives to protect people who weren't friends or relatives...

A. He's talking about reality, you're talking about an example from a game

B. There's a difference between survival at all costs and survival against an enemy that plans to wipe us all out. What point is there in betraying your neighbor when you're going to get processed eventually too? There's a mutual benefit.

[Xilizhra]

KBomb wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Given that no one else listens to Tali, Koris is the sole voice of reason in that stupid miniwar. It's not a particularly difficult concept to discern, that he'll be necessary to work out a ceasefire.

Well, that is only if you went in knowing that a circumstance was going to pop up that required him to call ceasefire. Metagaming isn't really what I was referring to.

Anyway, you're saying that sometimes you have to kill some to save many?

Only if you assume I'm insufficiently intelligent to figure out that something like that was going to be necessary, even in-game. I assure you that I'm not.

In any case, you're using a false analogy, comparing the definite extinction of one side to the complete lack of extinction of anything in Control, predicating it on a false belief in my own Shepard's weakness.

[KBomb]

Xilizhra wrote...

Only if you assume I'm insufficiently intelligent to figure out that something like that was going to be necessary, even in-game. I assure you that I'm not.

In any case, you're using a false analogy, comparing the definite extinction of one side to the complete lack of extinction of anything in Control, predicating it on a false belief in my own Shepard's weakness.

 
From a role playing perspective I find it hard to believe that you went in knowing that saving Koris would lead to saving both races--without any metagaming. heh, but if that is your story for the purpose of your argument, by all means stick to it.

Even though Destroy is on a much larger scale, the concept is the same. You saved Koris but killed his entire crew for the better long term result. No matter what the reason you saved him was: in your view, the sacrifice of the crew was necessary. No matter your reasoning, you still chose to kill all those people because at the time, you felt it was the right thing to do.

Most people who chose Destroy feel the same. In their view -without hindsight metagaming-- they felt it was the best choice, most feel it's still the right choice knowing the outcome.

[Xilizhra]

KBomb wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Only if you assume I'm insufficiently intelligent to figure out that something like that was going to be necessary, even in-game. I assure you that I'm not.

In any case, you're using a false analogy, comparing the definite extinction of one side to the complete lack of extinction of anything in Control, predicating it on a false belief in my own Shepard's weakness.

 
From a role playing perspective I find it hard to believe that you went in knowing that saving Koris would lead to saving both races--without any metagaming. heh, but if that is your story for the purpose of your argument, by all means stick to it.

Even though Destroy is on a much larger scale, the concept is the same. You saved Koris but killed his entire crew for the better long term result. No matter what the reason you saved him was: in your view, the sacrifice of the crew was necessary. No matter your reasoning, you still chose to kill all those people because at the time, you felt it was the right thing to do.

Most people who chose Destroy feel the same. In their view -without hindsight metagaming-- they felt it was the best choice, most feel it's still the right choice knowing the outcome.

I was fairly sure that Koris would be needed for something, without metagaming.

Regarding this, a sacrifice is necessary regardless; kill one person with great influence or kill many with little influence. There's no way to leave the situation without shedding another's blood, unlike in Control. And I also consider all of the people on the Destroy side to be both badly wrong and entirely too blase about killing, something that I avoid at all times when I can.

[S.A.K]

cerberus1701 wrote...

Quote from SAK:

I killed them because of their survival at any cost attitude.

You think the Human race is any different? You think if aliens came here to wipe us out as a species that we wouldn't do what we had to do? That we wouldn't do the most vile, horrific things to them is that meant Humans survived and they didn't...or they ran home?

Please.

And your point is?

Dunno about you, but I don't think humanity will sacrifice its free will and freedom just to survive. If you are going to make a point, please refer to a real example and not something that might happen. You should read the whole comment before answering...

[BleedingUranium]

You're missing the point, Xil. Destroy is the only way the Reapers die, thus the only true victory. Everything else is secondary.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 11 mars 2013 - 07:14 .

[KBomb]

Xilizhra wrote...

I was fairly sure that Koris would be needed for something, without metagaming.

Regarding this, a sacrifice is necessary regardless; kill one person with great influence or kill many with little influence. There's no way to leave the situation without shedding another's blood, unlike in Control. And I also consider all of the people on the Destroy side to be both badly wrong and entirely too blase about killing, something that I avoid at all times when I can.

So you assumed Koris was going to be important. You killed all those innocent people on an assumption.

I don't find the majority of those who chose Destroy to be nonchalant about it at all. Most of them always state the fact that they hated killing EDI and the geth, but felt it was necessary. The ones who do seem "meh" about it usually are so after someone starts riding their high horse all over the place.

[Xilizhra]

KBomb wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I was fairly sure that Koris would be needed for something, without metagaming.

Regarding this, a sacrifice is necessary regardless; kill one person with great influence or kill many with little influence. There's no way to leave the situation without shedding another's blood, unlike in Control. And I also consider all of the people on the Destroy side to be both badly wrong and entirely too blase about killing, something that I avoid at all times when I can.

So you assumed Koris was going to be important. You killed all those innocent people on an assumption.

I don't find the majority of those who chose Destroy to be nonchalant about it at all. Most of them always state the fact that they hated killing EDI and the geth, but felt it was necessary. The ones who do seem "meh" about it usually are so after someone starts riding their high horse all over the place.

Every decision is made based on one assumption or another.

Also, their regret is meaningless. If they truly regretted it so much, they should have swallowed their fears regarding the other options.

[BleedingUranium]

Xilizhra wrote...

Also, their regret is meaningless. If they truly regretted it so much, they should have swallowed their fears regarding the other options.

That doesn't make sense, those aren't really related.