402 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

they are terrifying monsters

I (my Shepard) is also not so easily terrified, especially not by cheap pulp-horror creations.

Strictly within the confines of the fiction, if Shepard had absolutely no fear of the reapers, he/she would be insane. A sane person would rightly fear something that is killing billions of people within a short period of time. They wouldn't be cheap pulp horror creations from the protagonist's perspective. This kind of thinking is easiest when observing as the audience to the story, but everyone here would wet their pants if it were actually happening lol

[Indy_S]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Are the Reapers mind-controlled slaves?

Does a mind-controlled slave deserve to be punished for being controlled?

Kind of irrelevant if the Reapers are never freed, though. It becomes impossible to judge them as distinct from the Catalyst. Any claim you make of them being cooperative and benevolent can be attributed to the Catalyst just as much as the Reapers.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

KaiserShep wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

they are terrifying monsters

I (my Shepard) is also not so easily terrified, especially not by cheap pulp-horror creations.

Strictly within the confines of the fiction, if Shepard had absolutely no fear of the reapers, he/she would be insane.

YUP! again. 

I suppose that's exactly what it would take, though.

Know what I mean?

[KaiserShep]

I guess James Vega was right.

[Megaton_Hope]

Yes, if Reapers were real and had invaded everywhere you could possibly go to escape them, the sane response would be to fear them. Not fearing them is possible, but would indicate something deeply, pathologically wrong.

[dreamgazer]

darkway1 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Oh, great. The Reapers are akin to rape victims now.

I think you missed the point of what was said.

I grasped the point, and the sensationalist association, just fine.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Yes, if Reapers were real and had invaded everywhere you could possibly go to escape them, the sane response would be to fear them. Not fearing them is possible, but would indicate something deeply, pathologically wrong.

"This is war. People die."

[Megaton_Hope]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Yes, if Reapers were real and had invaded everywhere you could possibly go to escape them, the sane response would be to fear them. Not fearing them is possible, but would indicate something deeply, pathologically wrong.

"This is war. People die."

Going to war without a good solid fear of your own mortality behind you, also pathological. Symptomatic of some of the more severe forms of PTSD, in which a person goes "berserk," and cuts off their sense of attachment not only to the broader society, and to the military command structure, but the members of their unit as well.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Going to war without a good solid fear of your own mortality behind you, also pathological. Symptomatic of some of the more severe forms of PTSD, in which a person goes "berserk," and cuts off their sense of attachment not only to the broader society, and to the military command structure, but the members of their unit as well.

"I just saved your ass. Hell, I saved the whole damn galaxy. And now you're judging me??"

[teh DRUMPf!!]

... but seriously though, this (what you're saying) is a joke. People can steel themselves to their mortality in a number of ways. Lots of motivating factors exist. It's not "normal" but it's not "abnormal" either.

Let's not forget the entire mission on Thessia where Liara is told to feel nothing for the impeding doom of her planet and whole species from squadmate #2 and Shepard if you choose the dialogue.

In the end, I can accept Shepard being "pathological" just fine if that mindset helps him do what he has to do.

At some point, you gotta play their game better than they do if you want to win.

[Megaton_Hope]

No it's not [a joke], I just read a book about it. Achilles in Vietnam, kind of an interesting read; guy works with chronic patients who had come out of Vietnam, and compares them to Achilles' character arc in the Iliad. When talking about what he called the "berserk state," the author (Jonathan Shay, Ph. D.) is referring basically to these diagnostic criteria:

. Feeling of detachment or estrangement from others
. Restricted range of affect (e.g., unable to have loving feelings)

http://www.ptsd.va.g...-iv-tr-ptsd.asp

"Steeling yourself to your mortality" may be a battlefield necessity, while off the battlefield it becomes a barrier to healthy social relationships. The two are not incompatible.

EDIT for clarity.

Modifié par Megaton_Hope, 10 mai 2013 - 06:45 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Okay.


Healthy social relationships (off-battlefield) was not part of the discussion to begin with, and doesn't contradict the idea of Shepard's enemy (on-battlefield) not invoking fear up to the levels of terror. Sooo...

[Nightwriter]

Auld Wulf wrote...

For me it still comes down to intellectuality and ethics versus primal animal fear.

Are the Reapers mind-controlled slaves? According to the Catalyst, absolutely so. They are unable to even think in any way that the Catalyst would find undesirable. They are "slaves" in the most profound meaning of the word, as they literally have no will of their own. They are but very clever puppets, whose minds are never allowed to realise their own sapience.

Does a mind-controlled slave deserve to be punished for being controlled? Ethically, no. It would be unethical to blame someone for what they did when they had a gun to their head (that changes everything, no matter who you think you are). It's even more unethical to blame someone who's being controlled to a degree far greater than that, to a degree that has almost unimaginable subtlety.

Am I afraid of the Reapers? I have to make this irrelevant, I have to look at things according to logic and ethics, and I have to make a decision based upon that. To listen to one's fear to the point of wanting to kill a creature for a crime it didn't commit? Down that road lies madness -- as an ethical, intelligent creature myself, I understand the nuances involved. Anything one might feel towards the Reapers should be aimed instead to the Leviathans, who created the Catalyst in the first place.

It's funny how this has real world parallels, really. Often you'll have people who're responsible for being unethical who'll try and create a construct to make themselves look better. And Nightwriter provides a fine example of that.

Nightwriter wrote...

People seem drawn to defend things they see as "misunderstood" in general. If something is vilified or disliked there will inevitably be a group of white knights that rise up in defense of it for no other reason than that doing so creates adrenaline heavy debate and also gives them the feeling of being in a small enlightened group that challenges popular opinion. For a long time, it was popular to dislike the endings, and it was popular to see the Reapers as enemies despite Starsquirt's revelations.

I can only take from this that Nightwriter is afraid of us. By "us," I mean those who have a sympathetic view of the Reapres and those who dislike the "abomination aesthetic." And why afraid? Because I've clearly presented a rational argument as to why the Reapers can engender basic human sympathy, but instead he calls it reasonless. I think this stems from something deeper, his own inability to sympathise, which he's drawing attention away from. Ethics and sympathy are cornerstones of the civilised mind, something that everyone should have.

So this reflects negatively on him, rather than anyone else. He hasn't told us why he's unable to sympathise, or why he finds the Reapers unsympthatic. That's because I'm not certain he has a reason, because if he did, he would have told us. And this is what he's trying to distract us away from.

Nightwriter wrote...

Add to that the fact that it's clear the writers wanted you to think you'd misunderstood the Reapers, and people not only feel that they are righteously challenging popular opinion by defending them, they feel as if they are among the few who truly "get" what the writers were trying to say.

All that and he doesn't tell us why we think the way we do, it's a statement but not an explanation, which peels back the veneer of a position to reveal the aforementioned underlying fear -- that we do get something he doesn't. Again, the things we tend to "get" aren't anything he's brought to the fore, but rather ethics and sympathy. He has a more simplistic outlook, he sees only the Reapers and what they do, but he's unable to realise how the Reapers were victimised by the Catalyst. What the Catalyst did was full mind and body rape, and you can't react the way he does just because you find the rape victim repugnant.

So, ultimately, the fear is one of being revealed as a person with a more unethical mindset. There are distraction tactics on offer, but no real arguments.

Nightwriter wrote...


I say this in regard to people who seem to champion the Reapers zealously, though. We must acknowledge the existence of those who defend the Reapers for clear reasons that aren't based in social pathology.

This is a further example of fear, a self-contradictory olive leaf offered in the hopes it would make his position seem more solid. But instead all it does is point out that those defending the Reapers actually do have very valid reasons for doing so, and reasons that have absolutely nothing at all to do with the claims he's made. This is summed up as: "I want to broadly demonise everyone who disagrees with me, but I don't want to say that this applies to evereyone who disagrees with me."

It's clear from this last point that, indeed, he fully recognises that those who sympathise with the Reapers have valid, logical, emotionally mature, and ethical reasons for doing so. That they can sympathise. He's just lashing out because of his own inability to sympathise, but doubting himself at the same time.

If you can sympathise and you're of an ethical state of mind, it's hard not to understand the point of view I presented in opnening this post. Why would someone sympathise with the Reapers? Well, why would someone sympathise with a rape victim?

The answer's not hard to figure out.

Watcha think, gents? Should I give it a go? Seems to be right on the fence between "worth replying to" and "not worth replying to."

Modifié par Nightwriter, 10 mai 2013 - 07:23 .

[Indy_S]

Might as well go ahead.

[Ticonderoga117]

Nightwriter wrote...
Watcha think, gents? Should I give it a go? Seems to be right on the fence between "worth replying to" and "not worth replying to."

Depends on how much time you want to waste.

[spirosz]

Indy_S wrote...

Might as well go ahead.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Nightwriter wrote...
Watcha think, gents? Should I give it a go? Seems to be right on the fence between "worth replying to" and "not worth replying to."

If you do, it will be entirely for your own benefit. 

Wulfie's one of those guys that is fundamentally divorced from reality. He cannot physically understand what others opinions, ideals, and arguments are. Any reply you try to give using any real argument, proof, fact, or logic will just be ignored.

It's a lot like Seival really.

I'd say go for it just to see your reply, but also no-go because you'd just be wasting your time.

[EnerPrime]

Honestly, I don`t get why people think the Catalyst would expend effort directly controlling Reapers. Considering that the Catalyst built and programmed the Reapers from the liquefied-corpses-of-billions up, it would seem far more efficient for him to just program his ideals directly into them. Probably with a `do whatever the Catalyst says` clause built in. Even if the Reapers are being `controlled`, it would likely be nothing like the forms of mind control we`re familliar with. The Reapers would have indoctrination into the Catalyst`s twisted beliefs as a core part of their being,

The Reapers aren`t poor mind controlled innocents forced into their irredemeably evil actions by the big bad Catalyst, like Auld Wulf postualtes. They`re built from scratch as true believers in the righteousness of serial mass genocide. If you destroyed the Catalyst and left the Reapers intact, they`d probably keep reaping regardless. The Catalyst is all about the long game, and wouldn`t build followers who wouldn`t keep carrying out his solution without him.

The Catalyst designed the Reapers, including their mind and how they think. You`re deluding yourself if you think the Reapers don`t agree with what they`re doing or require any kind of enforced control. The Catalyst is an AI, and dirct control of all Reapers would be far too inefficient of a design flaw for him to incorporate into his creations.

Modifié par EnerPrime, 10 mai 2013 - 07:09 .

[The Night Mammoth]

EnerPrime wrote...

Honestly, I don`t get why people think the Catalyst would expend effort directly controlling Reapers. Considering that the Catalyst built and programmed the Reapers from the liquefied-corpses-of-billions up, it would seem far more efficient for him to just program his ideals directly into them. Probably with a `do whatever the Catalyst says` clause built in. Even if the Reapers are being `controlled`, it would likely be nothing like the forms of mind control we`re familliar with. The Reapers would have indoctrination into the Catalyst`s twisted beliefs as a core part of their being.

This is what continually sticks in my mind when thinking about the whole issue. Ignoring that no Reaper has even shown to be anything but a giant, merciless, genocidal space-ship bent on our destruction even when we've directly communicated with them, why would the Catalyst deliberately make gestalt AI's that have free-will and individuality, and then after their birth, indoctrinate them, or if they were always indoctrinated, why would the Catalyst design them to have the capability of free-will and individuality if the Catalyst's control drops? 

Furthermore, what the frish are the Reapers without the Catalyst? Do they have their own thoughts, motives and goals, like organics? Are they like another geth consensus, or multiple consensuses? Are they each an AI like EDI? They're the result of combining unknown numbers of organic minds to make one 'being', but since we know how this works - melting people down in a very frightening and painful way against their will - I can't imagine the results are something particularly benevolent, or kind, or gentle.

And what about these organic minds? Are they each indoctrinated? Or are they aware of what their new bodies are doing and are unable to do anything but watch? Are they in pain or discomfort? Or is each 'mind' just stripped down to it's 'processing power' and used to make the gestalt Reaper intelligence? 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 10 mai 2013 - 07:23 .

[Han Shot First]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Yes, if Reapers were real and had invaded everywhere you could possibly go to escape them, the sane response would be to fear them. Not fearing them is possible, but would indicate something deeply, pathologically wrong.

"This is war. People die."

People in wars experience fear, including the most battle-hardened of veterans.

One of the misconceptions about bravery is that it is an absence of fear. It isn't. The difference between a coward and a hero is that the coward is conquered by his fear while the hero does his or her duty despite it.

If Shepard didn't experience any fear, there would be something pathologically wrong with him.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 10 mai 2013 - 07:23 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Han Shot First wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Yes, if Reapers were real and had invaded everywhere you could possibly go to escape them, the sane response would be to fear them. Not fearing them is possible, but would indicate something deeply, pathologically wrong.

"This is war. People die."

People in wars experience fear, including the most battle-hardened of veterans.

One of the misconceptions about bravery is that it is an absence of fear. It isn't. The difference between a coward and a hero is that the coward is conquered by his fear while the hero does his or her duty despite it.

If Shepard didn't experience any fear, there would be something pathologically wrong with him.

"Can a man be brave if he's afraid?"

"That's the only time a man can be brave."

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 10 mai 2013 - 07:31 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Nightwriter wrote...
Watcha think, gents? Should I give it a go? Seems to be right on the fence between "worth replying to" and "not worth replying to."

Might be worth a laugh. He is in fact on of those people your post applies to.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 10 mai 2013 - 07:53 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Han Shot First wrote...

People in wars experience fear, including the most battle-hardened of veterans.

One of the misconceptions about bravery is that it is an absence of fear. It isn't. The difference between a coward and a hero is that the coward is conquered by his fear while the hero does his or her duty despite it.

If Shepard didn't experience any fear, there would be something pathologically wrong with him.

I guess it's a good thing I didn't say he doesn't experience "any" fear.

Afterall, there's always fear of losing! 

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 10 mai 2013 - 08:19 .

[Wayning_Star]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

People in wars experience fear, including the most battle-hardened of veterans.

One of the misconceptions about bravery is that it is an absence of fear. It isn't. The difference between a coward and a hero is that the coward is conquered by his fear while the hero does his or her duty despite it.

If Shepard didn't experience any fear, there would be something pathologically wrong with him.

I guess it's a good thing I didn't say he doesn't experience "any" fear.

Afterall, there's always fear of losing! 

might be what all the MEU fuss is about with the endings, as 'winning isn't everything' but synthesis sure puts a  kink in natures get along...

have to evolve to survive? what a friggen drag..

[TheRealJayDee]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
Watcha think, gents? Should I give it a go? Seems to be right on the fence between "worth replying to" and "not worth replying to."

Might be worth a laugh. He is in fact on of those people your post applies to.

Would be fun, definitely.