935 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

DecCylonus wrote...

The difference is I wouldn't start a war to destroy the Geth because I felt it would be good for the galaxy. The Catalyst has started countless wars and wiped out countless races and individuals in the name of creating order, which it believes needs to exist for the galactic good. That's a vast difference.

And the difference is I wouldn't choose control to control the Galaxy because I felt it would be good for the galaxy.  The Catalyst has started countless wars and wiped out countless races and individuals in the name of creating order, which it believes needs to exist for the galactic good. That's a vast difference.

You see what I did there?  You made an argument saying Control is being the Catalyst.  I countered with saying Destroy can also be interpreted as being like the Catalyst or Reapers.  You explained that your choice of Destroy is not for the same reasons as the Catalyst and I explain my choice of control is not for the same reasons as the Catalyst.

So we can continue down this road or you can accept this line of logic fails.  You are not picking destroy because your motives are like the Catalyst nor am I picking control for those reasons.

Modifié par remydat, 12 avril 2013 - 07:47 .

[Nole]

So the whole point about this topic is that by choosing Control I am being a good person?

[fr33stylez]

PirateMouse wrote...

Argolas wrote...

There it begins... Who are the many? Shep A.I. decides. Who threatens them? Shep A.I. decides.

The many may as well be the Reapers in that speech.

Really? Of all the parts to try to nitpick, you selected that?

And who decided when you picked Destroy in the first place?

Sure, you can speculate all you like that the Reapers are the "many," but that's just your made-up headcanon.  By contrast, it's actual canon that you committed genocide to kill the Reapers.  You chose to commit genocide.  Who decided? You decided.

You missed the point of that post entirely.

Argolas meant that it is up to Shepalyst to pick sides. Nobody was talking about the 'many' being Reapers. Just liek in my example with a Krogan-Turian war, Shepalyst gets the last say. This is not self-determinism.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

EDI and the Geth would be classified as "collateral damage".

But since PirateMouse seems to be an extension of Wolfie's will it doesn't really matter.

[PirateMouse]

fr33stylez wrote...

What do you consider 'galaxy-cracking threats'? Will you intervene in a krogan-turian war? Which side will you pick?

Those are not galaxy-cracking threats (since I also chose to sabotage the genophage, at least ... had I not, then the krogans would be potentially galaxy-cracking, yes).

As well, the idea that no one will have power is a pretty illusion.  Someone always has power.  Someone always decides.  And it's usually just one person or a small group of elites.

It's just that usually, only the scum rises to the top because only the worst kinds of people put in the effort to grab that power.

[DecCylonus]

PirateMouse wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

It has nothing to do with motive. It has to do with the consequences of the choices the Catalyst offers. The future of the galaxy is entirely determined by Shepard's choice. The outcome of each option is radically different.

If all you really want is the Catalyst gone, the Reapers no longer a threat, and no genocide, why not pick Synthesis? You get everything you stated with that choice too.

The implications of Synthesis are too bizarre and extreme, and I also don't feel it's right to force that on the entire galaxy.  Control isn't forcing anything on anyone -- there's nothing preventing me from taking control, fixing the relays, and then just stepping back to only really intervene if something truly galaxy-cracking comes up again.

The options are basically:

1. Commit genocide (unacceptable unless no other viable option exists).

2. Turn everyone into weird synthetic/organic hybrid things.  The implications are staggering and potentially nightmare-inducing, and even in a best-case scenario this is forcing something on the rest of the galaxy in a way I'm not prepared to do.  Worst of all, it fails to solve what I believe to be the real problem: to wit, Starbrat itself.

3. Take a kind of power I never particularly wanted but in so doing stop the Reapers without further casualties and, as a side benefit, gain a force that could be used to protect the galaxy if anything truly galaxy-cracking ever came along again.

It's really not even a contest.

So what I'm hearing you say is that you don't particularly believe in Control as a solution, it just has the least repulsive consequences to you. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I respect that viewpoint.

I think the fundamental difference between us is you see the Geth as victims of genocide, and I see them as casualties of war. I do regret their deaths, especially my canon Shepard who argued against the Quarian / Geth war in ME2 and fought hard to end it with both sides alive in ME3. But I see their deaths as necessary to achieve a greater good. I can't accept a galaxy with an AI controlling the Reaper armada and running everyone's affairs. I also can't accept the genetic rewrite. In your OP you asked how far Destroyers are willing to go, and I said I would have sacrificed some of the organic races to destroy the Reapers. I also gave my perspective on why that sacrifice was acceptable to me. I can't speak for all Destroyers, but I know many of us feel this way.

I think we both agree that the ending was designed so that there is no happy ending. All have some bad consequences. As to which ones are worse than others, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

So you're fine with causing the extinction of the Krogan, but not the Geth?

Nice PirateMouse, real nice.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 12 avril 2013 - 07:51 .

[PirateMouse]

fr33stylez wrote...

Argolas meant that it is up to Shepalyst to pick sides. Nobody was talking about the 'many' being Reapers. Just liek in my example with a Krogan-Turian war, Shepalyst gets the last say. This is not self-determinism.

That's like saying you don't have self-determinism because, at any moment, your government could send police or military personnel after you.  If you believe that every time one entity has more power, all other entities automatically lose all self-determinism forever, then okay.  Otherwise, your position makes no sense.

[robertthebard]

PirateMouse wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

What do you consider 'galaxy-cracking threats'? Will you intervene in a krogan-turian war? Which side will you pick?

Those are not galaxy-cracking threats (since I also chose to sabotage the genophage, at least ... had I not, then the krogans would be potentially galaxy-cracking, yes).

As well, the idea that no one will have power is a pretty illusion.  Someone always has power.  Someone always decides.  And it's usually just one person or a small group of elites.

It's just that usually, only the scum rises to the top because only the worst kinds of people put in the effort to grab that power.

You mean like TIM, going for Control?

[Argolas]

I accept the accusation of genocide if you mean genocide against the Reapers. I reject the accusation of genocide if you are refering to synthetic life.

I explained this before: Genocide is not the act of wiping out a species, although this may be the result of genocide. Genocide is, according to international law, this:

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Link

The intent makes it genocide, and I never intended to kill the Geth or any other Synthetic. This part of choosing Destroy is dictated by the Reapers because they are slaughtering outside.

Interestingly enough, according to (e), Synthesis is genocide.

[PirateMouse]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

So you're fine with causing the extinction of the Krogan, but not the Geth?

Nice.

No, but the genophage never caused extinction of the krogan, it just brought them to the level of one viable birth per year ... which given krogan live about 10 times as long as humans means krogan "only" have about 10 times the birthrate of humans (and then each krogan born can live about 10 times as long).

That of course is a topic for another thread, though.

Modifié par PirateMouse, 12 avril 2013 - 07:52 .

[remydat]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Remy, do we really have to go through this AGAIN? If you take a human and you throw the human in a giant blender and turn it on say "grind", what do you have? A dead human shake. This is getting disgusting. If you take say 6 million humans and throw them into a giant blender and grind them up what do you have? A mess of ground up dead humans. Then they take that and add a bunch of their favorite blend of special nanites and herbs and spices to it and pump it through these pipes into this superstructure, which is pretty huge and shaped like a metal human for some reason. Then these nanites go to work and form a webbing inside the slushie along with the herbs and spices. Then their core program gets uploaded into it that gives it purpose*. Legion saw the reaper mind and explains it like this "one ship, many minds, one will." Nazara told you this on Virmire. "We are each a nation, independent, free of all weakness." Legion explains that this means that the reapers have achieved unity.

They are fully aware of what they do, and they do it with purpose. That one will is the harvest. They are not innocent.

So it takes 6 million humans to make a capital reaper, and say they make a few more destroyers out of the rest of the species. What happens to the rest of the people? They die. They all die. All of your friends, your family, everyone you love, they all die. That's what happens. Across the galaxy it ends up to be billions of people who die at the hands of the reapers.

You are being delusional about the reapers.
I cannot think of any other way the thing gets activated other than . It is controlled by Starbrat. Starbrat controls the reapers. They are its solution.

What does any of the above have to do with my post?  The poster said he chooses destroy because the alternative is everyone will die.  I pointed out that no one dies in Control or Synthesis.  No one.  This is stated by the Catalyst and it is proven by the game when you watch the endings.

So exactly how does any of the above relevant to the point being made.  The only way you can conclude that everyone will die in Control or Synthesis is to ignore or think the Catalyst is lying but that for some strange reason he is not lying about Destroy which just so happens to be the option you want to pick, lol.

It is Confirmation Bias plain and simple.  What Reaper shakes have to do with what I said is lost on me.

[PirateMouse]

Argolas wrote...

The intent makes it genocide, and I never intended to kill the Geth or any other Synthetic. This part of choosing Destroy is dictated by the Reapers because they are slaughtering outside.

You did because, as pointed out elsewhere, what you did was exactly the same as knowingly and deliberately shooting through innocent bystanders, shredding them with bullets, in order to kill a dangerous criminal behind them.

You acted with full knowledge and intent.  Genocide.

That being said, I think I'll abandon this thread.  The original purpose has long since been lost; it got derailed almost before it got past the first page.  Whatever answers to my actual question I had any hope of getting have already been offered long ago.  Feel free to take some final potshots at me, and we'll call it done.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

PirateMouse wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

So you're fine with causing the extinction of the Krogan, but not the Geth?

Nice.

No, but the genophage never caused extinction of the krogan, it just brought them to the level of one viable birth per year ... which given krogan live about 10 times as long as humans means krogan "only" have about 10 times the birthrate of humans (and then each krogan born can live about 10 times as long).

That of course is a topic for another thread, though.

The Krogan are a dying race.

If you don't cure the Genophage they are doomed.

The ending slides all but confirm it.

[fr33stylez]

PirateMouse wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

Argolas meant that it is up to Shepalyst to pick sides. Nobody was talking about the 'many' being Reapers. Just liek in my example with a Krogan-Turian war, Shepalyst gets the last say. This is not self-determinism.

That's like saying you don't have self-determinism because, at any moment, your government could send police or military personnel after you.  If you believe that every time one entity has more power, all other entities automatically lose all self-determinism forever, then okay.  Otherwise, your position makes no sense.

If I lived in a state where the government can send police after me for any reason - absolutely my self-determinism is affected. I mean, you just described a police state. In your case, you elected yourself supreme overlord of the galaxy, and reserve the right to interfere as you see fit.

That's fine if you believe this is the best option, but you need to accept you're affecting how the galaxy is shaped based on whatever you think is correct. Saying 'governments do this too' isn't a justification, or even correct, as no government with unlimited power exists that is allowed to mandate how other people live. As you didn't address the other Control quotes, I assume you conceede now  that Shepalyst has big plans for the galaxy.

[Phatose]

Argolas wrote...

I accept the accusation of genocide if you mean genocide against the Reapers. I reject the accusation of genocide if you are refering to synthetic life.

I explained this before: Genocide is not the act of wiping out a species, although this may be the result of genocide. Genocide is, according to international law, this:

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Link

The intent makes it genocide, and I never intended to kill the Geth or any other Synthetic. This part of choosing Destroy is dictated by the Reapers because they are slaughtering outside.

Interestingly enough, according to (e), Synthesis is genocide.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you did intend that.  You intended it as part of a larger scheme - but you still intended it.  Your selected interpretation would allow giant loopholes - "I didn't intend to kill all the Serbians/Jews/Americans/Muslims, I just intended to reclaim our homeland.  Killing them all was a side effect."

[jstme]

PirateMouse wrote...

Argolas wrote...

There it begins... Who are the many? Shep A.I. decides. Who threatens them? Shep A.I. decides.

The many may as well be the Reapers in that speech.

Really? Of all the parts to try to nitpick, you selected that?

And who decided when you picked Destroy in the first place?

Sure, you can speculate all you like that the Reapers are the "many," but that's just your made-up headcanon.  By contrast, it's actual canon that you committed genocide to kill the Reapers.  You chose to commit genocide.  Who decided? You decided.

Reapers are designed and built by Catalyst for the purpose of reaping and cycles. Destroying reapers is self defense.

Of course the issue is what reapers would do if they were not controlled by Catalyst and whether simply removing the glowing kid is not the more humane option - but you do not get it in RGB. And you do not get reapers with free will.
In control virtual copy of Shepard tries to control the reapers instead of catalyst. In Synthesis reapers are "brainwashed". 
So destroying reapers while no option of trying to set those powerfull and hugely intelligent machines designed to destroy civilisations exists - is a valid choice in SELF DEFENSE even if it means commiting reapercide.

[DecCylonus]

remydat wrote...

DecCylonus wrote...

The difference is I wouldn't start a war to destroy the Geth because I felt it would be good for the galaxy. The Catalyst has started countless wars and wiped out countless races and individuals in the name of creating order, which it believes needs to exist for the galactic good. That's a vast difference.

And the difference is I wouldn't choose control to control the Galaxy because I felt it would be good for the galaxy.  The Catalyst has started countless wars and wiped out countless races and individuals in the name of creating order, which it believes needs to exist for the galactic good. That's a vast difference.

You see what I did there?  You made an argument saying Control is being the Catalyst.  I countered with saying Destroy can also be interpreted as being like the Catalyst or Reapers.  You explained that your choice of Destroy is not for the same reasons as the Catalyst and I explain my choice of control is not for the same reasons as the Catalyst.

So we can continue down this road or you can accept this line of logic fails.  You are not picking destroy because your motives are like the Catalyst nor am I picking control for those reasons.

That's not exactly what I said. I said that if you pick Control, you are agreeing with major parts of the Catalyst's solution. You are agreeing that the synthetic / organic conflict is inevitable. If it isn't, then no solution is necessary, and therefore Control is unnecessary. You are also agreeing that the Reapers are a good solution to the problem. (Genocide of the whole galaxy is a bad solution, but the Reapers themselves have merrit.) If they aren't, then why pick it? I confronted the OP with this dilemma because I wanted to know what he really thought about Control as a solution.

I also allow for the possibility that you may pick Control because the consequences are the least repulsive to you out of all the choices. Many people chose their preferred solution for that reason.

[fr33stylez]

Phatose wrote...

Argolas wrote...

I accept the accusation of genocide if you mean genocide against the Reapers. I reject the accusation of genocide if you are refering to synthetic life.

I explained this before: Genocide is not the act of wiping out a species, although this may be the result of genocide. Genocide is, according to international law, this:

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Link

The intent makes it genocide, and I never intended to kill the Geth or any other Synthetic. This part of choosing Destroy is dictated by the Reapers because they are slaughtering outside.

Interestingly enough, according to (e), Synthesis is genocide.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you did intend that.  You intended it as part of a larger scheme - but you still intended it.  Your selected interpretation would allow giant loopholes - "I didn't intend to kill all the Serbians/Jews/Americans/Muslims, I just intended to reclaim our homeland.  Killing them all was a side effect."

Yeah, if the goal was to prevent an alien species that has been harvesting Earth for the past 1 billion years, and the alternative was to become the Alien God with unlimited power that governs Earth for eternity, or to combine everyone on Earth with dolphins, because reasons.

[jstme]

Phatose wrote...

Argolas wrote...

I accept the accusation of genocide if you mean genocide against the Reapers. I reject the accusation of genocide if you are refering to synthetic life.

I explained this before: Genocide is not the act of wiping out a species, although this may be the result of genocide. Genocide is, according to international law, this:

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Link

The intent makes it genocide, and I never intended to kill the Geth or any other Synthetic. This part of choosing Destroy is dictated by the Reapers because they are slaughtering outside.

Interestingly enough, according to (e), Synthesis is genocide.

Actually, I'm pretty sure you did intend that.  You intended it as part of a larger scheme - but you still intended it.  Your selected interpretation would allow giant loopholes - "I didn't intend to kill all the Serbians/Jews/Americans/Muslims, I just intended to reclaim our homeland.  Killing them all was a side effect."

Destroying reapers - that were designed and built to wipe out numerous civiliizations,wiped out numerous civilizations and unless stopped would wipe out all evolved civilizations of this cycle - plus destroying those in self defence - you compare to what? Hyperboles,much.

[Phatose]

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

[remydat]

Argolas wrote...

I accept the accusation of genocide if you mean genocide against the Reapers. I reject the accusation of genocide if you are refering to synthetic life.

I explained this before: Genocide is not the act of wiping out a species, although this may be the result of genocide. Genocide is, according to international law, this:

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Link

The intent makes it genocide, and I never intended to kill the Geth or any other Synthetic. This part of choosing Destroy is dictated by the Reapers because they are slaughtering outside.

Interestingly enough, according to (e), Synthesis is genocide.

Synthesis is not genocide by your logic if my intent was not to do so.  My intent with Synthesis is not to change everyone, it is to keep everyone alive.  The fact I can only achieve that by synthesis if I want to avoid exterminating a race or controlling the Reapers is merely dictated by the way the crucible works.  But your logic, it is the cruncible's fault not mine.

[Ecrulis]

WittingEight65 wrote...

So the whole point about this topic is that by choosing Control I am being a good person?

Pretty much, as I said earlier all threads, no matter the intention, of this nature devolve into a select few calling everyone who picks destroy monsters.

[fr33stylez]

remydat wrote...

Argolas wrote...

I accept the accusation of genocide if you mean genocide against the Reapers. I reject the accusation of genocide if you are refering to synthetic life.

I explained this before: Genocide is not the act of wiping out a species, although this may be the result of genocide. Genocide is, according to international law, this:

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    ( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    © Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Link

The intent makes it genocide, and I never intended to kill the Geth or any other Synthetic. This part of choosing Destroy is dictated by the Reapers because they are slaughtering outside.

Interestingly enough, according to (e), Synthesis is genocide.

Synthesis is not genocide by your logic if my intent was not to do so.  My intent with Synthesis is not to change everyone, it is to keep everyone alive.  The fact I can only achieve that by synthesis if I want to avoid exterminating a race or controlling the Reapers is merely dictated by the way the crucible works.  But your logic, it is the cruncible's fault not mine.

I accept your logic. So going by baseline affect, Destory affects one group, Synthesis affects the whole galaxy. Therefore, Synthesis is worse.

[anillee]

I don't know how to answer this question because I'm one of those people who doesn't believe the Catalyst was being completely honest with Shepard at the end of Mass Effect 3. I think, as others have mentioned, the DLC points at there being more than what meets the eye with the Reapers and the like.

Another thing I want to mention about destroy that I noticed during a recent ME 2 session. When you get Garrus, he gets badly injured in the mission. Bad to the point that your crew tells you they don't think he's going to make it, then in the briefing room, Jacob tells you again that he was badly hurt and they did they "did the best they could" with "cybernetics."

Granted, he wasn't Shepard after Normandy SR1 status, but wouldn't he also be at risk if you chose Destroy?