45 réponses à ce sujet

[thehomeworld]

KoorahUK wrote...

iakus wrote...

So, I posited this on another thread, and it got me wondering what others thoguht:

I have to wonder:  to those who actually thought the endings were good, what would you say about Saren in ME1 if he was right?  What if his assertion that the Reapers would spare the galaxy and allow them to live as slaves if they had surrendered at the start  Would Saren have been the hero of ME1?

So, pretending for a moment that Saren was right, and not indoctrinated, that if organics had surrendered to the Reapers, they would have been enslaved rather than killed for resisting, would Saren have been the hero?

I ask this given the Crucible results.  How different would Saren have been from Shepard with those choices?

Not sure I follow your logic. If Saren hadn't been indoctrinated, he was plain wrong.

The Reapers did not want to conquer us in the way the Romans did, where taking slaves from the defeated was an objective of expansion, they wanted to harvest us - that was their sole purpose.

They killed those fighting back because they were an impediment to that harvest, not to punish us for daring to defy them. The 'become our slaves and we will spare you' line is bull****, intended to beguile organics fearful for their lives into dropping resistance. Giving in to the Reapers meant becoming bio-goo or becoming a husk - at best a Collector type race. There is no way Saren was right about anything unless the Reapers entire purpose was different. 

And no, Synthesis isn't the same thing as waht Saren was talking about.

Totally agree with Koorah here. The reapers for 3 games showed us the fruits of their past harvests if you're a top species on the hit list you got to become a reaper, a husk, or dead all of which forfit your life in one way or another there is no free will now that the star brat was introduced he retconned the whole, " Each  a nation". Back in ME that phrase meant each reaper was like a continent or flotillia ship and within that reaper their minds or people were in agreement to harvest more over to what they felt was most likely a utopian society but in reality they were all just brainwashed via the reapers own indoctrination devices into thinking their mental reassignment into a reaper shell was good. After starbrat it simply means you are his pawns to do with as he sees fit to direct you.

Saren shows us a physical example of sythisis because at the end of the game he became that way however he was the lucky one most evidence in game have way more husks existing in the world then thrall Saren's so more then likely your ass would be a husk not a thrall.

We also have the fact that Saren was offering up the galaxy in exchange for the Turian race to be spared so if sythisis was so grand and perfect why exclude your own race yet force all the others to take it? Saren studied indoctrination and reaper tech he knew what he was signing up the rest of the galaxy for and wanted none of it for his own race. It was racist but about the only smart thought he had on the subject.

Saren was wrong on many levels. Time and time again example after example the series shows you how control and sythinis end and they never turn out well long or short term. Only in 3 can you and your shep join the morron campign and sign up the galaxy for both of these failed enslaving choices which doesn't make you right it makes you stupid and the reason why natural selection was made. You and by extention Shep sign up the galaxy for such horror your shep deserves to die and BW shouldn't have given you a lie design to make you feel good and validate insanily morronic choices they should've shown you the truth control = husk the galaxy and in time the minor races and sythistis = reapers win forever in their most simplistic explinations.

Modifié par thehomeworld, 11 avril 2013 - 05:22 .

[M Hedonist]

MetioricTest wrote...

I've always found to cooler to ponder "What if TIM wasn't indoctrinated "

On Horizon he kinda proves the Reapers can be controlled

He didn't prove much considering the facility housing a device that can (supposedly) control Reaper husks somehow got overrun by Reaper husks.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

iakus wrote...

So, pretending for a moment that Saren was right, and not indoctrinated, that if organics had surrendered to the Reapers, they would have been enslaved rather than killed for resisting, would Saren have been the hero?

I ask this given the Crucible results.  How different would Saren have been from Shepard with those choices?

We know that the physical-alteration of organics is not optional in Synthesis.

Moving beyond that, however, is moving into the realm of speculation. There's nothing to indicate your assertions that, in Crucible option, the galaxy loses their freedom of choice (what to say of being Reaper slaves). Your speculation is just that: speculation, based on hysteria of all-things-not-Destroy (a fear that dominates BSN).

So, how different? Very different.

page'd (apologies, I hate being bottom-of!)

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Sauruz wrote...

He didn't prove much considering the facility housing a device that can (supposedly) control Reaper husks somehow got overrun by Reaper husks.

Kai Leng took everything important back to TIM.

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

iakus wrote...

So, pretending for a moment that Saren was right, and not indoctrinated, that if organics had surrendered to the Reapers, they would have been enslaved rather than killed for resisting, would Saren have been the hero?

I ask this given the Crucible results.  How different would Saren have been from Shepard with those choices?

We know that the physical-alteration of organics is not optional in Synthesis.

Moving beyond that, however, is moving into the realm of speculation. There's nothing to indicate your assertions that, in Crucible option, the galaxy loses their freedom of choice (what to say of being Reaper slaves). Your speculation is just that: speculation, based on hysteria of all-things-not-Destroy (a fear that dominates BSN).

So, how different? Very different.

Keep in mind I am not talking about Synthesis, here.  But surrender.  Would surrender, if it guaranteed the survival of organics (not in Reaper form), ahve been a viable alternative?  Especially before knowledge of the Crucible came to light?

If anything, this is closer to Control than Synthesis, though not even that, exactly.

[Steelcan]

CosmicGnosis wrote...

And yet, Synthesis has nothing to do with slavery. It's the complete opposite, based on all the available evidence. But people are so determined to discredit the ending that they will apply every possible negative headcanon to it.

I like the results of Synthesis, and I hate slavery.

. The connection between Saren's appeasement of the Reapers and synthesis is fairly strong.  It's an association fallacy sure, but most people don't care.

[grey_wind]

Isn't Saren right in the end, anyway?

The game certainly presents submission to the oldest troll in the galaxy as being more favourable than fighting it.

[Applepie_Svk]

BNN999 wrote...

Saren - We need to synthesize with the Reapers or we're all screwed!

Allow me to fix it for you, Saren from first believed that he was forging an alliance betwen the organics and synthetics but after awhile he change his opinion from "forging the alliance" into "being a tool worth maintance"

One of the most obvious even maybe famous quotes from Saren was: Is submission not preferable to extinction? 

Not to mentioned that in the end Saren end up like ressurected husk puppet..."with Sovereing gifts"



But... point is that synthesis makes all bit of pointless.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 11 avril 2013 - 06:33 .

[Spartas Husky]

Simple answer...


Is submissions preferable to extinction?

Up to each individual to decide.

Modifié par Spartas Husky, 11 avril 2013 - 10:10 .

[Dude_in_the_Room]

That depends on multiple things:

1) do you trust the source of thousands of years of galactic genocide

2) do you really want to be slaves

3) what exactly do Reaper slaves do?

3) if you can stop them....why wouldn't you?

[sr2josh]

iakus wrote...

So, I posited this on another thread, and it got me wondering what others thoguht:

I have to wonder:  to those who actually thought the endings were good, what would you say about Saren in ME1 if he was right?  What if his assertion that the Reapers would spare the galaxy and allow them to live as slaves if they had surrendered at the start  Would Saren have been the hero of ME1?

So, pretending for a moment that Saren was right, and not indoctrinated, that if organics had surrendered to the Reapers, they would have been enslaved rather than killed for resisting, would Saren have been the hero?

I ask this given the Crucible results.  How different would Saren have been from Shepard with those choices?

  Of course not!  Surrendering outright would have just made the harvest easier. 

[Iakus]

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

That depends on multiple things:

1) do you trust the source of thousands of years of galactic genocide

2) do you really want to be slaves

3) what exactly do Reaper slaves do?

4) if you can stop them....why wouldn't you?

Well, #1 certainly applies both to Saren and Shepard

#2, well for Shepard it's does the galaxy really want ::insert ending choice here:

And #4 kinda applies to both as well.  Saren thought this was the only option that didn't get everyone killed.  Shepard was faced with the only options that wouldn't get everyone killed

@Spartas Husky  Exactly!  At what point is bending to superior strength heroic or foolish?  If Saren really could have brokered a surrender where everyone lived, would he have been justified to do so?

Modifié par iakus, 11 avril 2013 - 11:30 .

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

iakus wrote...

So, pretending for a moment that Saren was right, and not indoctrinated, that if organics had surrendered to the Reapers, they would have been enslaved rather than killed for resisting, would Saren have been the hero?

I ask this given the Crucible results.  How different would Saren have been from Shepard with those choices?

We know that the physical-alteration of organics is not optional in Synthesis.

Moving beyond that, however, is moving into the realm of speculation. There's nothing to indicate your assertions that, in Crucible option, the galaxy loses their freedom of choice (what to say of being Reaper slaves). Your speculation is just that: speculation, based on hysteria of all-things-not-Destroy (a fear that dominates BSN).

So, how different? Very different.

Keep in mind I am not talking about Synthesis, here.  But surrender.  Would surrender, if it guaranteed the survival of organics (not in Reaper form), ahve been a viable alternative?  Especially before knowledge of the Crucible came to light?

If anything, this is closer to Control than Synthesis, though not even that, exactly.

Using the Crucible isn't surrender. It's the product of resistance to the cycle.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 11 avril 2013 - 11:41 .

[L_B_123]

If the reapers kept us alive we would end up like the collectors,now I know I would rather be dead than be controlled to such a point ou lose all of why made you a person.

[AlanC9]

MegaSovereign wrote...


Using the Crucible isn't surrender. It's the product of resistance to the cycle.

Maybe so, but the hypothetical doesn't have anything to do with that anyway.

I'd still need to know what this "slavery" is actually like.

[MegaSovereign]

AlanC9 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...


Using the Crucible isn't surrender. It's the product of resistance to the cycle.

Maybe so, but the hypothetical doesn't have anything to do with that anyway.

I'd still need to know what this "slavery" is actually like.

Isn't the OP equating Saren's actions to using the Crucible?

He's implying that setting off the Crucibler is a form of "surrender" or "submitting" to the Reapers.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 11 avril 2013 - 11:52 .

[robertthebard]

MegaSovereign wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...


Using the Crucible isn't surrender. It's the product of resistance to the cycle.

Maybe so, but the hypothetical doesn't have anything to do with that anyway.

I'd still need to know what this "slavery" is actually like.

Isn't the OP equating Saren's actions to using the Crucible?

He's implying that the setting the Crucible off is a "surrender" or "submitting" to the Reapers.

Not according to what I've read so far, OP is implying that the Crucible isn't even discovered yet, let alone constructed.

On the idea, after spending the day kind of thinking about it, no.  We have nothing that the Reapers want, other than bodies to make another Reaper.  They don't need us as spies, since they can indoctrinate spies at will.  They don't need us as labor, see the spies reference.  Despite what Saren thought at the time, any peace would be shaky at best, since the Reapers have no other agenda than Harvesting.  So surrender would mean a cycle of Harvest with no losses, and that's all that would change.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...

Keep in mind I am not talking about Synthesis, here.  But surrender.  Would surrender, if it guaranteed the survival of organics (not in Reaper form), ahve been a viable alternative?  Especially before knowledge of the Crucible came to light?

If anything, this is closer to Control than Synthesis, though not even that, exactly.

Oh, my apologies.

So basically, you're asking: "is submission prefferable to extinction?" Generally speaking, the answer is yes.

Saren's folly, where this question is concerned, is the fact that the circumstances were extraordinary. Submission or not, we were all going to get Reap'd anyway. Also, submitting typically meant getting too close to the enemy, which meant you'd get indoctrinated and not have any chance to fight them later. The Reapers - before we encounter the catalyst - are a rare instance where the answer is "no," you really have no choice but to fight and fight now.

However, if you take out both the harvesting and indoctrination, then I'd argue that surrender *is* a viable solution.

There's no such thing as "dying free." Dead is dead, there's nothing more. If you submit to save yourself, you're alive. You have options. You can go from there. Living under the Reapers may be good or bad. If it's good, you go on with your life. If it's bad, at least you're alive to "fight the system" (from the inside or outside) and maybe get a chance to see a new, better day. Again, sumbmission is not necessarily a permanent condition.

"Another day," as they say.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 12 avril 2013 - 12:30 .

[Dude_in_the_Room]

iakus wrote...

Dude_in_the_Room wrote...

That depends on multiple things:

1) do you trust the source of thousands of years of galactic genocide

2) do you really want to be slaves

3) what exactly do Reaper slaves do?

4) if you can stop them....why wouldn't you?

Well, #1 certainly applies both to Saren and Shepard

#2, well for Shepard it's does the galaxy really want ::insert ending choice here:

And #4 kinda applies to both as well.  Saren thought this was the only option that didn't get everyone killed.  Shepard was faced with the only options that wouldn't get everyone killed

@Spartas Husky  Exactly!  At what point is bending to superior strength heroic or foolish?  If Saren really could have brokered a surrender where everyone lived, would he have been justified to do so?

Remember the Alamo.

[MegaSovereign]

robertthebard wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...


Using the Crucible isn't surrender. It's the product of resistance to the cycle.

Maybe so, but the hypothetical doesn't have anything to do with that anyway.

I'd still need to know what this "slavery" is actually like.

Isn't the OP equating Saren's actions to using the Crucible?

He's implying that the setting the Crucible off is a "surrender" or "submitting" to the Reapers.

Not according to what I've read so far, OP is implying that the Crucible isn't even discovered yet, let alone constructed.

On the idea, after spending the day kind of thinking about it, no.  We have nothing that the Reapers want, other than bodies to make another Reaper.  They don't need us as spies, since they can indoctrinate spies at will.  They don't need us as labor, see the spies reference.  Despite what Saren thought at the time, any peace would be shaky at best, since the Reapers have no other agenda than Harvesting.  So surrender would mean a cycle of Harvest with no losses, and that's all that would change.

So, pretending for a moment that Saren was right, and not
indoctrinated, that if organics had surrendered to the Reapers, they
would have been enslaved rather than killed for resisting, would Saren
have been the hero?

I ask this given the Crucible results.  How different would Saren have been from Shepard with those choices?

I was under the impression that iakus was connecting the Crucible to Saren. Perhaps he modified the question later on in the thread.

If the question is, "if surrender was a viable way to save everyone, would you take it?" My answer is no. The thing is though, the Reapers literally want nothing from us. They don't want our resources. They want slaves, but only for the purposes of the harvest. It's hard to conceive of this hypothetical scenario since it contradicts what we knew about the Reapers just from ME1 alone.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 12 avril 2013 - 01:05 .

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Isn't the OP equating Saren's actions to using the Crucible?

He's implying that setting off the Crucibler is a form of "surrender" or "submitting" to the Reapers.

I am comparing the actions, though not exactly the way you think

Setting off the Crucible demands a "sacrifice", regardless fo choice.  Saren's surrender option demanded sacrifice as well.  Not just in the surrendering to the Reapers, but in the things Saren did throughout ME1.

What I'm asking is, if we pretended that Saren's plan was viable, would his actions have been justified?