935 réponses à ce sujet

[Dieb]

If it were to harm any organic species at all, I wouldn't pick it. That's the entire premise. I think you may mistake the intentions of many people who picked Destroy.

To me, Destroy is the ultimate question of whether you consider synthetics as alive. I do not.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 12 avril 2013 - 04:45 .

[DecCylonus]

PirateMouse wrote...

I didn't say you "get your rocks off" on it, though I've never shied away from calling it what it is.  I am implying and do believe that some of you justify it past what you'd be willing to do if it meant sacrificing people you cared about more.  I'm reminded of an argument Ashley made about how sacrificing aliens would be like sacrificing your dog -- how you love your dog but would do it anyway if you had to? Just take that and apply it to friendly synthetics instead.

On the other hand, I'm quite sure there are at least some who would be willing to sacrifice any or even all current advanced organics if it meant killing the Reapers.  I'll even go so far as to say that I could, myself, make the case for doing so, despite the fact I would hardly agree with such a decision.  In any case, part of the point of this thread is to get at that question and see how close to the mark I may or may not be.

Speaking as a destroyer, and stressing that this is just my opinion:

I set out to protect this cycle from the Reapers. I care about the people - of all races, organic and synthetic - of this cycle. If the price was all organics or advanced organics, then that is too high. Control is the least objectionable option after Destroy, to me. However, I would dismantle the Reapers for scrap or fly them into the nearest star shortly after assuming control. I didn't fight and sacrifice a lot of good people just to trade one galactic overlord for another. As for why I don't pick Control normally, the ending dialogue indicates that Shepard keeps the Reapers around for a long time. Flying them into a  star is just my preference, and nothing more than head cannon.

As for choosing Destroy, every single one of us signed up for this fight knowing that it could be the end for some or all of us. We all agreed to do whatever it took to use the Crucible, even though we didn't know exactly what the Crucible would do. We all had to wonder if setting that thing off would kill us, and we accepted that risk to destroy the Reapers. Everyone accepted those risks because they believed destroying the Reapers was worth it.

As Shepard, I'm used to sacrificing my soldiers to get the job done. Every one of the three background stories includes this. I sacrificed somebody on Virmire, and maybe a few on the Suicide Mission. I lectured James on the subject when he came to my cabin for advice. This is the biggest enemy possible, and I knew going in that it was going to take a big sacrifice to beat them. Thousands were killed by them while we were trying to get the Crucible docked. The defining moment is here.

If I choose Control or Synthesis, I admit that the Catalyst was right. I either become galactic overlord or I force everyone through a genetic rewrite. Those outcomes are more unacceptable to me than killing a bunch of my soldiers by setting off the weapon as we, the galactic coalition, intended. Nobody volunteered to support me as new overlord. Nobody volunteered to be rewritten or help rewrite others. They volunteered to sacrifice their lives to end the Reapers, so that at least some of us could live in a galaxy without Reapers. That was the mission, and I'm going to complete it. To me, sacrificing soldiers who volunteered for it is entirely acceptable. Of course I will mourn them, but their deaths are on the Catalyst more than me. I take responsibility for my part and will have to live with it. But at least I, and everyone else, can live with it in an overlord-free galaxy where natural evolution is allowed to continue.

Modifié par DecCylonus, 12 avril 2013 - 04:49 .

[MassPredator]

I have to stop the reapers once and for all, no matter the cost, i will always choose destroy.

[PirateMouse]

DecCylonus wrote...

If I choose Control or Synthesis, I admit that the Catalyst was right.

Hold the phone a second.

How is choosing Control admitting the Catalyst was right? You're basically saying to it, "You're fired!" and taking over.  It's the ultimate expression of saying the Catalyst was wrong.

Synthesis, okay, you could make that argument.

[PirateMouse]

Baelrahn wrote...

If it were to harm any organic species at all, I wouldn't pick it. That's the entire premise. I think you may mistake the intentions of many people who picked Destroy.

To me, Destroy is the ultimate question of whether you consider synthetics as alive. I do not.

Oh, I don't mistake anything.  Your answer is one of the more telling ones in fact, and it's part of what's beginning to make me rethink my opinion of Starbrat's claims.  Thanks very much indeed for sharing.

[AresKeith]

PirateMouse wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

If I choose Control or Synthesis, I admit that the Catalyst was right.

Hold the phone a second.

How is choosing Control admitting the Catalyst was right? You're basically saying to it, "You're fired!" and taking over.  It's the ultimate expression of saying the Catalyst was wrong.

Synthesis, okay, you could make that argument.

My two main problems with Control is

1. No one not even an AI should have all that power

2. None of us can tell what might happen to the Sheplyst in the future

[DeinonSlayer]

I've been one of the most consistent Quarian defenders on this site. By contrast, I hve little regard or sympathy for the Asari.

If I had to choose between them, as much as I hate it, I'd save the Asari - because it's millions versus billions. The same applies here.

The crucible's "logic" would be even jankier if destroy targeted specific organic species, but it's all the same.

[PirateMouse]

AresKeith wrote...

2. None of us can tell what might happen to the Sheplyst in the future

"It is inevitable that synthetics will destroy organics, so I'll kill organics first to prevent it."

"It is inevitable that AI Shepard will turn evil, so I'll kill synthetics first to prevent it."

Hmm.

[HiddenInWar]

If the entire point of the reapers is to wipe out all organics, and if your AU version of destroy wiped out all organics, what exactly would be accomplished in the end? We would have been doing the reapers a favor. Destroy is fine the way it is.

[Asnine112]

Robosexual wrote...

Asnine112 wrote...

The only thing you're actually killing in destroy is EDI.

Geth aren't synthetics, they're software

So's everything. We can't work without our hardware, but what makes us is our software.

The Geth die along with EDI, no matter how much you don't want to believe it.

By your theory all the ships that we're using should be destroyed too, but this clearly isn't the case.

Why do the Geth survive where EDI does not? Simple: EDI is based on Reaper tech....she's basically Reaper tech actually. Geth, on the other hand, are software constructs who temporarily inhabit hardware shells, the way a program runs on a computer (or say, a VI or program helps to pilot a ship in the ME universe). By your theory every single ship should be destroyed in the destroy ending, yet none are (with high enough EMS), to bring it back to my first sentence.

Also, the "Catalyst" never explicitly says that the Geth will die....it's just implied. There's enough grey area in there to leave a lot of room for doubt (lots of speculation for everyone!)

[remydat]

PirateMouse wrote...

Essentially, the very act of choosing Destroy proves Starbrat was right all along?

Interesting angle.

Well only in so much as this scenario actually plays out.  Entirely possible orgnanics somehow never create a new AI or that if they do it either does not care you exterminated all previous synthetic life to save yourselves or for some strange reason never manges to find out the truth.  So it is not a a given but certainly a reasonable possibility.

Of course, if such an AI existed, it probably wouldn't even have to find out about Destroy because some organics somewhere will probably try to destory it and this time it basically was born a full AI like a RC Geth and basically goes to town on the Galaxy without any stupid restrictions like having to fight ground wars because of the harvest. 
These dudes will just be nuking planets or succeeding where the Krogan failed and running asteroids into planets and sh*t.  Hell just destroy a whole system by running an asteriod into a Mass Relay.  These MoFos won't care about preserving organic life in Reaper form so all bets are off.

[remydat]

AresKeith wrote...

My two main problems with Control is

1. No one not even an AI should have all that power

2. None of us can tell what might happen to the Sheplyst in the future

1.  You already have that power no matter what chose you mate.  You have the power to unilaterally decide to exterminate all synthetics.  The minute the Catalyst lets you decide the Galaxy's fate you have the power of a god.  The issue is whill you use god's power to make a decision that affects everyone or to make a decision to affact a particular group that you probably don't mind see exterminated.

2.  No of us can tell what might happen with Destroy when a new more advanced AI is created that far exceeds anything that came before it because this is the first time anyone has lived and advance past the harvest and it will not be restricted by the desire to preserve organic life.

[robertthebard]

PirateMouse wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Then how is your premise any more relevant, since Destroy doesn't require you to kill any organics.

I already explained this.  I'm not going to hold your hand.  Go back and read.

Right, I forgot for a moment, this is BSN.  Exceptions to the rule only apply to certain factions to say "You are evil for doing that".  However, since Destroy targets Synthetics only, somebody postulating the same scenario in Control, another ending that only targets Reapers can't happen because you chose to not allow it?  It is, at the base, the exact same thing.  A beam that targets a specific type, being altered by you to target something it doesn't, was altered by someone else to target something it doesn't, only in your preferred ending, so it could never happen? Welcome to BSN...

[MattFini]

dreamgazer wrote...

Ruthless calculus. Depends on the equation.

This, mostly.

Although, I went into ME3 knowing the Reapers had to be destroyed at any cost. Not controlled and certainly not synthesized.  

I take the turian philosophy here: if even one person is left standing at the end of the war, then the war was worth it. 

I don't trust the cycle to truly end any other way. 

Modifié par MattFini, 12 avril 2013 - 05:35 .

[DeinonSlayer]

remydat wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

My two main problems with Control is

1. No one not even an AI should have all that power

2. None of us can tell what might happen to the Sheplyst in the future

1.  You already have that power no matter what chose you mate.  You have the power to unilaterally decide to exterminate all synthetics.  The minute the Catalyst lets you decide the Galaxy's fate you have the power of a god.  The issue is whill you use god's power to make a decision that affects everyone or to make a decision to affact a particular group that you probably don't mind see exterminated.

2.  No of us can tell what might happen with Destroy when a new more advanced AI is created that far exceeds anything that came before it because this is the first time anyone has lived and advance past the harvest and it will not be restricted by the desire to preserve organic life.

1. There's a difference between exerting that power once, and never again, versus wielding that power for the entire foreseeable future.

2. I don't buy it.

[BansheeOwnage]

PirateMouse wrote...

Here's a question for those who picked Destroy ...

Would you still pick Destroy if it required you to kill all quarians?

All asari?

All turians?

All humans?

All organics?

How far are you really prepared to go? How far does the end justify the means for you?

All life in the galaxy would be acceptable for me. Which is refuse really. Why? Because it ensures all future species freedom from the cycle. That's worth it.

[PirateMouse]

robertthebard wrote...

Right, I forgot for a moment, this is BSN.  Exceptions to the rule only apply to certain factions to say "You are evil for doing that".  However, since Destroy targets Synthetics only, somebody postulating the same scenario in Control, another ending that only targets Reapers can't happen because you chose to not allow it?  It is, at the base, the exact same thing.

No, it's really not.  I actually explained why it isn't.  I covered this topic exactly, to the point I can't explain it better than by just copy/pasting.  Do I need to copy/paste? You refuse to go back and read? Okay, here's your copy/paste:

PirateMouse wrote...

Of course not ... but "enslaving" all Reapers is hardly equivalent as it only acts against an enemy force (the most terrible enemy force in the history of the galaxy, in fact).  By contrast, killing all synthetics means murdering friendlies and allies.  Your question and attempted analogy would make sense in this context if the Control ending already required you to "enslave" all synthetics.

In short, the scenarios are different from the start.  I'm drawing an analogy, saying, "You were willing to wipe out one entire species ... would you commit genocide against another, too?" The analogy doesn't carry to Control because Control never required you to control anyone but the Reapers.  They would be equivalent only if Destroy didn't require you to kill anyone but the Reapers or if Control required that you control all synthetic life.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 05:47 .

[BansheeOwnage]

MattFini wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Ruthless calculus. Depends on the equation.

This, mostly.

Although, I went into ME3 knowing the Reapers had to be destroyed at any cost. Not controlled and certainly not synthesized.  

I take the turian philosophy here: if even one person is left standing at the end of the war, then the war was worth it. 

I don't trust the cycle to truly end any other way. 

Exactly.

"A good leader values the life of his men over the success of the mission
But understands that sometimes, the cost of failing the mission is higher than the cost of losing those men."

- Anderson

[DecCylonus]

PirateMouse wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

If I choose Control or Synthesis, I admit that the Catalyst was right.

Hold the phone a second.

How is choosing Control admitting the Catalyst was right? You're basically saying to it, "You're fired!" and taking over.  It's the ultimate expression of saying the Catalyst was wrong.

Synthesis, okay, you could make that argument.

The Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to the synthetic / organic conflict "problem". By assuming control, you admit that:
1) This conflict is inevitable and that a radical solution is necessary. 
2) An armada of all powerful warships controlled by an AI is the best solution for keeping the peace.

The only part you disagree with is wiping out everyone every 50,000 years. Or maybe you disagree with that. Some Renegade Shepards might see wiping out one or more races "to keep the peace" as acceptable.

So I disagree completely. Control is the ultimate expression that the Catalyst was mostly right. It came up with the optimal solution, it just applied it too liberally by launching genocidal wars on a regular schedule. Install a new AI and it's all good.

[robertthebard]

remydat wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

My two main problems with Control is

1. No one not even an AI should have all that power

2. None of us can tell what might happen to the Sheplyst in the future

1.  You already have that power no matter what chose you mate.  You have the power to unilaterally decide to exterminate all synthetics.  The minute the Catalyst lets you decide the Galaxy's fate you have the power of a god.  The issue is whill you use god's power to make a decision that affects everyone or to make a decision to affact a particular group that you probably don't mind see exterminated.

2.  No of us can tell what might happen with Destroy when a new more advanced AI is created that far exceeds anything that came before it because this is the first time anyone has lived and advance past the harvest and it will not be restricted by the desire to preserve organic life.

1.  Yes, you do have that power, for as long as it takes you to shoot the tube, and eliminate the threat.

2.  I have touched on this before, at least what ever happens will be on the people that did it, of their own free will.  I do love the assumption that people would build an AI w/out constraints though, but I suppose it's necessary to support your position that, w/out ShepAI to prevent it, things would be bad?  Sooner or later, things may well go bad, but as I said, at least people are living free of the threat of the Reapers, or of a ShepAI that believes it's for the best to quell whatever it is they're doing for the "betterment" of the galaxy.  Are these decisions going to be made by committee?  Is the affected species going to have a say, or be eliminated from whatever Church of ShepardAI, Council due to their emotional attachment to doing things their way?

[Xilizhra]

Zazzerka wrote...

PirateMouse wrote...

This is a serious question.  I really want to get people to think about it and see what they say.

If you say so. These kinds of threads have a track record.

You could start by not assuming that we all get our rocks off to genocide.

Well, you do rather constantly bray about its virtues, which can get... wearisome, to say the least.

[RadicalDisconnect]

I'm prepared to metagame the sh*t out of the ME series. But I already do, so it doesn't matter. But then again, I'm also not a Destroyer anymore.

[PirateMouse]

DecCylonus wrote...

The Reapers are the Catalyst's solution to the synthetic / organic conflict "problem". By assuming control, you admit that:
1) This conflict is inevitable and that a radical solution is necessary. 
2) An armada of all powerful warships controlled by an AI is the best solution for keeping the peace.

No you don't.  By assuming control, you kick Starbrat out of power, stop the Reapers from being a threat, and do so without committing genocide against anyone.  Nowhere in any of that are you required to agree with the brat about anything.  The only thing it requires you to believe is that Starbrat is telling the truth about controlling the Reapers ... and if you believe Starbrat's lying to you, you have no more reason to believe that shooting the Crucible will activate it, and Refusal becomes your only logical choice.

[Xilizhra]

As for choosing Destroy, every single one of us signed up for this fight knowing that it could be the end for some or all of us. We all agreed to do whatever it took to use the Crucible, even though we didn't know exactly what the Crucible would do. We all had to wonder if setting that thing off would kill us, and we accepted that risk to destroy the Reapers. Everyone accepted those risks because they believed destroying the Reapers was worth it.

False. The synthetics did not sign on for extinction when they knew an alternative was available.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

As for choosing Destroy, every single one of us signed up for this fight knowing that it could be the end for some or all of us. We all agreed to do whatever it took to use the Crucible, even though we didn't know exactly what the Crucible would do. We all had to wonder if setting that thing off would kill us, and we accepted that risk to destroy the Reapers. Everyone accepted those risks because they believed destroying the Reapers was worth it.

False. The synthetics did not sign on for extinction when they knew an alternative was available.

. No they signed on for extinction when they joined the Reapers.  Again:devil:

Modifié par Steelcan, 12 avril 2013 - 05:55 .