779 réponses à ce sujet

[Argolas]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

TIM always hid behind that claim. You can't justify black because you are doing white at the same time. If a terrorist organization distributes food and water to the poor in their home country, that doesn't make them gray or shady. They are still the bad guys as long as they kill innocents for ideological reasons.

Always? I only remember him invoking the "grey morality" argument once between the games.

If black is irredeemible to you, than there's really no one in Mass Effect you can reasonably "white."

Virtually every character/organization in ME has a dark side to him/her/it. Cerberus never neutered a species. Mordin, STG?

But that's exactly what it is, he just does not phrase it directly. "He is no saint and he would be the first to admit it" (Miranda), but Cerberus does look out for humanity- and that's exactly what I am talking about. He uses White (looking out for humanity) as a shield while doing Black things (terrorism) and thus claims he is Grey.

[Subject M]

Argolas wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

TIM always hid behind that claim. You can't justify black because you are doing white at the same time. If a terrorist organization distributes food and water to the poor in their home country, that doesn't make them gray or shady. They are still the bad guys as long as they kill innocents for ideological reasons.

Such as... getting rid of the people we think are terrorists and seeing other nations' populations experience "acceptable losses?" I wonder what you'd say the US government is in this case.

Whoa there, I am not trying to start a discussion about the war on terrorism. I'm just saying that grey is often used as an excuse for something that is actually black. See below.

Xilizhra wrote...

That's not what I meant. Grey morality exists, I don't question that, and I don't say it's always a bad sign. I am just saying that it is largely abused to justify what should not be justified.

And yet, it's impossible to justify any ending without it.

That's not true. I hope this clarifies: When you justify a decision you make, you should argue with White and Black because that contains the facts as well as your opinion on them because that needs to be clear- you either do it or you don't, you can't partly choose Destroy and partly choose Control or whatever in that situation, nothing shady about that fact. Others are allowed and able to judge your claims. When you justify your decision with Grey, the whole thing is just unclear, I lack a better word for that at this point. You realize that it is not white but you are not willing to admit that it is black either. There is few others can make of that, or in other words, you judged your judgement yourself already which makes it harder for others to do so, that's why it is harder to argue against Gray even if it is just hidden Black. What it comes down to is this (my opinion): Black and White morality is something to be used, Grey morality is something to be observed.

Stuff often becomes grey just because they are unclear. This unclearity can depend on many factors such as complexity, conflicting values, inability to avoid something bad from actually happen, and so on and so forth. So you have do do the best you can.

[Xilizhra]

Whoa there, I am not trying to start a discussion about the war on terrorism. I'm just saying that grey is often used as an excuse for something that is actually black. See below.

And I'm saying that if that's your standard, most of the world's powers are pretty black themselves. Which may well be the case. Just know the logical results of your thinking.

That's not true. I hope this clarifies: When you justify a decision you make, you should argue with White and Black because that contains the facts as well as your opinion on them because that needs to be clear- you either do it or you don't, you can't partly choose Destroy and partly choose Control or whatever in that situation, nothing shady about that fact. Others are allowed and able to judge your claims. When you justify your decision with Grey, the whole thing is just unclear, I lack a better word for that at this point. You realize that it is not white but you are not willing to admit that it is black either. There is few others can make of that, or in other words, you judged your judgement yourself already which makes it harder for others to do so, that's why it is harder to argue against Gray even if it is just hidden Black. What it comes down to is this (my opinion): Black and White morality is something to be used, Grey morality is something to be observed.

White is perfect, and there are almost no perfect options ever. Hence, most decisions are some degree of gray, with a few black ones sprinkled in. White choices are extraordinarily rare.

You kind of have to know the reasons why both cases happened to make parallels. Cerberus wasn't seeking to exterminate a race of undesirables, unlike STG(!), they were trying to get hard data on indoctrination. By all accounts, they took no pleasure in doing so, either.

The STG was trying to avoid extermination, actually. They could have rendered the krogan extinct, but didn't.

[dreamgazer]

Eterna5 wrote...

I am just getting so sick of people judging someones character on the basis of an ending they chose for a videogame.

Saying someone is an immoral monster for picking Synthesis or any other ending is ****ing stupid and you should feel ****ing stupid.

It was a deeply-flawed attempt at forcing personal ideologies to collide.

Unfortunately, it's the game BioWare chose to play, and some people are significantly less restrained under the cloak of anonymity.

[iOnlySignIn]

My last ounce of respect for Gaider is now gone.

It feels liberating to not care about Dragon Age at all any more.

[AshenShug4r]

David Gaider isn't a bad person, but even good people can make bad decisions.

[Subject M]

Argolas wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Argolas wrote...

TIM always hid behind that claim. You can't justify black because you are doing white at the same time. If a terrorist organization distributes food and water to the poor in their home country, that doesn't make them gray or shady. They are still the bad guys as long as they kill innocents for ideological reasons.

Always? I only remember him invoking the "grey morality" argument once between the games.

If black is irredeemible to you, than there's really no one in Mass Effect you can reasonably "white."

Virtually every character/organization in ME has a dark side to him/her/it. Cerberus never neutered a species. Mordin, STG?

But that's exactly what it is, he just does not phrase it directly. "He is no saint and he would be the first to admit it" (Miranda), but Cerberus does look out for humanity- and that's exactly what I am talking about. He uses White (looking out for humanity) as a shield while doing Black things (terrorism) and thus claims he is Grey.

He can also be said using "black" in order to have enough resources to do as much "White" stuff as possible. At least he used to.But TIMs main problem is that he is indoctrinated.

[Xilizhra]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

My last ounce of respect for Gaider is now gone.

It feels liberating to not care about Dragon Age at all any more.

Does this also have to do with him losing the geth?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Argolas wrote...

But that's exactly what it is, he just does not phrase it directly. "He is no saint and he would be the first to admit it" (Miranda), but Cerberus does look out for humanity- and that's exactly what I am talking about. He uses White (looking out for humanity) as a shield while doing Black things (terrorism) and thus claims he is Grey.

Or maybe Miranda reached that opinion on her own.

You know, like many ME fans who have considered Cerberus "grey" since ME2.

To some extent, many still believe it, and that's kind of the point of greyness. There's no clear right or wrong.

[Ryzaki]

Bill Casey wrote...

Ajensis wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Mark Meer loves playing villains. Especially monsters...
He had a lot of fun playing all of the dark spawn in Dragon Age origins...

I doubt his favorite ending is based on ethical considerations like most people's would be...

Oh, please. So because someone enjoys playing the villain, they're less likely to judge their decisions from an ethical point of view? That's just nonsense. If anything, it's the other way around; seeing things from the antagonist's perspective potentially futhers understanding by giving you a more complex - and complete - view.

He said he liked it not only because he got to voice it but also because Shepard got to be a cool Reaper god...

I like it for the same reasons.

God Emperor Shep ftw

[Taboo]

HYR 2.0 wrote...


You kind of have to know the reasons why both cases happened to make parallels. Cerberus wasn't seeking to exterminate a race of undesirables, unlike STG(!), they were trying to get hard data on indoctrination. By all accounts, they took no pleasure in doing so, either.

An action that Shepard has the dialogue option of defending, no less, with a very convincing argument. Again, these characters don't come up with independent thought, it's the writers who are thinking these things. I've seen others on this site defend Cerberus for Sanctuary, too... folks that don't even choose Control (or Synthesis).


*edit*

This is a fun thread, Cosmic. Kudos! 

And they also chose to ignore the war going on to focus on their own ends. Absolutely eveything they did meant nothing. They killed people for no reason.

Shepard adressess this point in dialouge too. Literally saying "Bull****".

And had TIM gained control of the Reapers do you really want to think what an Ultra-Nationalist would do?

[iOnlySignIn]

Xilizhra wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

My last ounce of respect for Gaider is now gone.

It feels liberating to not care about Dragon Age at all any more.

Does this also have to do with him losing the geth?

Mainly. 

The equality he preaches apparently does not extend to beings which he understands less. 

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 02 avril 2013 - 06:48 .

[Ryzaki]

Eterna5 wrote...

I am just getting so sick of people judging someones character on the basis of an ending they chose for a videogame.

Saying someone is an immoral monster for picking Synthesis or any other ending is ****ing stupid and you should feel ****ing stupid.

Agreed.

Same with killing off people's waifu characters. No I'm not a psycho for wanting your pixel waifu out of my game. Deal with it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Xilizhra wrote...

You kind of have to know the reasons why both cases happened to make parallels. Cerberus wasn't seeking to exterminate a race of undesirables, unlike STG(!), they were trying to get hard data on indoctrination. By all accounts, they took no pleasure in doing so, either.

The STG was trying to avoid extermination, actually. They could have rendered the krogan extinct, but didn't.

Yeah, I wanted that one back after I posted it. Too late to ninja-edit at this point.

The "race of undesirables" part still largely applies, though.

I'd say that's closer to... a certain historical group, than Sanctuary.

[Xilizhra]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

My last ounce of respect for Gaider is now gone.

It feels liberating to not care about Dragon Age at all any more.

Does this also have to do with him losing the geth?

Mainly. 

The equality he preaches apparently does not extend to beings which he understands less. 

Well, it'd be interesting to learn where exactly he screwed up. Perhaps he's a Talimancer and otherwise found the sides equally worthy of saving?

[Mr.House]

I don't see the issue. So he picked merge, who cares? I despise the ending myself but if someone likest hat ending, who really gives a dam. If anything I'm more interested in what he said about the geth and quarians because I agree with it, he regretted making a certain option in Redcliffe in DAO possible so it's not a surprise he did not like the geth and quarian peace option.

Modifié par Mr.House, 02 avril 2013 - 06:57 .

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

My last ounce of respect for Gaider is now gone.

It feels liberating to not care about Dragon Age at all any more.

Does this also have to do with him losing the geth?

Mainly. 

The equality he preaches apparently does not extend to beings which he understands less. 

Well, it'd be interesting to learn where exactly he screwed up. Perhaps he's a Talimancer and otherwise found the sides equally worthy of saving?

You where not around when he outrgiht stated he wish he never included a certain option for Redcliffe in DAo where you?

[Yestare7]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

Well, damn. If David Gaider chose Synthesis, then I guess I should, too!

LMAO!!!!


Edit:  Don't make me pull out my anti-synthesis propaganda, kiddies might cry!:lol:

Modifié par Yestare7, 02 avril 2013 - 07:01 .

[Xilizhra]

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

My last ounce of respect for Gaider is now gone.

It feels liberating to not care about Dragon Age at all any more.

Does this also have to do with him losing the geth?

Mainly. 

The equality he preaches apparently does not extend to beings which he understands less. 

Well, it'd be interesting to learn where exactly he screwed up. Perhaps he's a Talimancer and otherwise found the sides equally worthy of saving?

You where not around when he outrgiht stated he wish he never included a certain option for Redcliffe in DAo where you?

Ah, so he's either a bad roleplayer in ME, or roleplays a bad Shepard?

[Argolas]

Xilizhra wrote...

Whoa there, I am not trying to start a discussion about the war on terrorism. I'm just saying that grey is often used as an excuse for something that is actually black. See below.

And I'm saying that if that's your standard, most of the world's powers are pretty black themselves. Which may well be the case. Just know the logical results of your thinking.

That's not true. I hope this clarifies: When you justify a decision you make, you should argue with White and Black because that contains the facts as well as your opinion on them because that needs to be clear- you either do it or you don't, you can't partly choose Destroy and partly choose Control or whatever in that situation, nothing shady about that fact. Others are allowed and able to judge your claims. When you justify your decision with Grey, the whole thing is just unclear, I lack a better word for that at this point. You realize that it is not white but you are not willing to admit that it is black either. There is few others can make of that, or in other words, you judged your judgement yourself already which makes it harder for others to do so, that's why it is harder to argue against Gray even if it is just hidden Black. What it comes down to is this (my opinion): Black and White morality is something to be used, Grey morality is something to be observed.

White is perfect, and there are almost no perfect options ever. Hence, most decisions are some degree of gray, with a few black ones sprinkled in. White choices are extraordinarily rare.

I think we agree more than you think, I suspect there is just a little problem with the understanding of terms. I could continue to explain what I said about politics but I don't want that on BSN, I just try to clarify a little more on the below part.

Those terms "Black" decision and "White" decision depend a lot on the POV. There is nothing shady about picking Control, Synthesis or Destroy, you either picked your choice or you didn't and your reasons for that should be Black and White while your choice must not necessarily be. For example, when you say "I chose Control because nobody else had to die" then this is a White reason and a valid argument that everyone has to respect, as is "I did not choose Destroy because it results in the Death of all Synthetic life" which is Black reasoning while once again nobody can honestly disagree with that without being morally inferiour, no matter if he/she agrees with your choice or not. If you say "I chose Control because the Reapers are repurposed" this is not a valid argument for judging your decision because it is Grey morality. That kind of thing should not be in a justification because it is no valid argument and could be abused to justify something that should not be.

Modifié par Argolas, 02 avril 2013 - 07:09 .

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

My last ounce of respect for Gaider is now gone.

It feels liberating to not care about Dragon Age at all any more.

Does this also have to do with him losing the geth?

Mainly. 

The equality he preaches apparently does not extend to beings which he understands less. 

Well, it'd be interesting to learn where exactly he screwed up. Perhaps he's a Talimancer and otherwise found the sides equally worthy of saving?

You where not around when he outrgiht stated he wish he never included a certain option for Redcliffe in DAo where you?

Ah, so he's either a bad roleplayer in ME, or roleplays a bad Shepard?

No, he simply does not like an easy way out option, which is what peace is. Does Xen start to try control geth or betray the fleet for science? No. All the geth act like angles after peace ect.  Nothing bad happens AT all. The option should not be there, it's Redcliffe all over again and I can see why that does not appeal to gaider at all.

[CosmicGnosis]

I think he romanced Tali.

What option in Redcliffe did he regret?

[Argolas]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

To some extent, many still believe it, and that's kind of the point of greyness. There's no clear right or wrong.

That is exactly what I was trying to say. There is no clear right or wrong and that's why it should not be used to justify anthing.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Taboo-XX wrote...

And they also chose to ignore the war going on to focus on their own ends. Absolutely eveything they did meant nothing. They killed people for no reason.

It only meant nothing because they failed, but hindsight is 20/20.

Their own ends are no less an end to the war, for that matter.

Few supported Cerberus as it were. Them controlling the Reapers? I can't blame them for going lone-wolf.

Shepard adressess this point in dialouge too. Literally saying "Bull****".

You get an interesting argument if you go to Joker after the mission and choose the bottom-right dialogue option.

Shepard points out that Cerberus was successful in what they were trying to do, control Reaper forces. Joker says that doesn't make it right. Shepard agrees, but argues that, if you consider that they would be dead anyway(...)

I don't agree, but it's damn hard to argue with that.

And had TIM gained control of the Reapers do you really want to think what an Ultra-Nationalist would do?

I certainly don't love that idea, but I'd take it over the Reapers winning. It goes back to that response I mentioned.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 02 avril 2013 - 07:11 .

[Mr.House]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

I think he romanced Tali.

What option in Redcliffe did he regret?

Being able to go to the mage tower, get the mages to save Conor, have Isolde not die and nothing bad happens despite Teagan and Isolde telling oyu it's extreamly risky. You pretty much pick the perfect choice which tells you something bad will happen but never does and Gaider already stated he wish he did not include that option.