428 réponses à ce sujet

[HiddenInWar]

I mean, the typical reaction to seeing something blow up in front of you would be to get /away/ from it.

[KingZayd]

Phatose wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The repeated genocide of the advanced species of the galaxy is a bit more than a slap in the face. Why put the lives of everyone in the galaxy on the line for the Reapers? Is it not your responsibility to protect the people of this galaxy as best you can?

Is it?

Were I to talk into a prison, decide this inmate is a danger, and kill him, would I be just?
If I were to walk down the street, see a man and decide to kill him for the same reasons, would I be just?

Is deciding that not playing god?  Synthesis fans are much accused of doing so, but I think we all do exactly that.

Yes it is your responsibility, as a member of the Alliance to protect humanity.

The Reapers aren't in a prison, and are an established threat.

Define "playing god". I honestly don't know what exactly that's supposed to mean.

Either way, both actions are illegal, but they are not intrinsically bad. If the inmate was going to kill everyone if you didn't, then you've saved a lot of lives. If he wasn't you've killed the inmate for nothing. 

[AresKeith]

HiddenInWar wrote...

spockjedi wrote...

One more reason to shoot the glass tube or to install MEHEM.

I still dont understand why shepard would walk towards an explosion.

Because the writer's demand it, even though Shepard was hitting the tube fine from far away

[Zazzerka]

Phatose wrote...

Would Jesus have agreed?

Why is Jesus the ideal standard?

[dreamgazer]

Phatose wrote...

Would Jesus have agreed?

[Phatose]

Zazzerka wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Would Jesus have agreed?

Why is Jesus the ideal standard?

Who would you prefer?

Would Buddha have agreed?
Would Superman have agreed?
Would Batman have agreed?

[DarkNova50]

Destruction is the fate of all intergalactic cuttlefish.

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

But that's just it. What if conflicted moral issues by nature fundamentally go against the grain of what the series has established?

So a series shouldn't be improved in such a way that its... nature is changed? (We should assume for the sake of the discussion that the change is an improvement; if it isn't worth doing on the merits we don't need any other reason to not do it.)

I guess the problem is how you determine what that nature is in the first place. We had a thread a couple of days back that was kind of on point; some Bio statements sound like they thought ME was all about making hard choices. Now, that's not a very sensible description of the game Bio actually made, which is more about being able to avoid dilemmas rather than about dealing with them. But back when they did the ME1 "choices" trailer it does seem to have been the vision.

I can see an argument  that Bio should have stuck with the failed reality of ME1 and ME2 rather than attempt to execute their original vision. But I'd have a lot more respect for the argument if it came from someone who likes "conflicted moral issues" on the merits but thinks that ME3 shouldn't have gone that route because ME1 and ME2 didn't.

As for the topic: of course Bio was aware of the ethical problems. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 mai 2013 - 06:28 .

[AresKeith]

Phatose wrote...

Zazzerka wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Would Jesus have agreed?

Why is Jesus the ideal standard?

Who would you prefer?

Would Buddha have agreed?
Would Superman have agreed?
Would Batman have agreed?

[Zazzerka]

Phatose wrote...

Who would you prefer?

Would Buddha have agreed?
Would Superman have agreed?
Would Batman have agreed?

How about no-one? Are you incapable of making decisions that aren't based on what x would do?

[Auld Wulf]

AresKeith wrote...

Phatose wrote...

[...] according to Christianty, everybody is worth forgiving.

Most Religions share that theme.  And most people don't live up to it.

[...] of course most people don't live up to it, because we view them as guidelines which is what they actually are

Some people can most certainly live up to it, but they are exceptional people.

Others see things like ethics as 'bendable guidelines' which only apply when it's convenient and comfortable for them, from a selfish perspective. The selfless person is an ultimately rare creature; the example of a selfless person, for example, is someone who would be willing to put their lives on the line in order to not rat out their friends, and would endure anything to remain loyal. However, 1984 is a representation of how weak of character and will most people are.

I say with complete conviction that here you may speak for yourself, but you do not speak for me. I have a strong sense of ethics and I can separate my personal feelings from my ability to analyse something according to ethics, this is a depressingly rare talent.

Were the Reapers responsible for what they did? No.

Were the Reapers responsible for what they became? No.

Did the Reapers have any say in this whatsoever? No.

The Reapers are victims. I've specifically pointed out in the past that they are victims of mind and body rape. My sense of ethics tells me that if someone is raped, then mind-controlled to kill, this person is a victim, those killed are also victims. It is the one pulling the strings who isn't. I recently ran a poll, a poll titled 'is it justice you seek?' and in that poll we see that many people want to kill the Reapers because they find them repugnant.

Does it matter to you and those like you that the Reapers are rape victims? No.

Does it matter to you and those lilke you that the Reapers were controlled and forced to do these things? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that, once freed, the Reapers are peaceful, benign creatures? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that the Reapers are victims of the Leviathans, as much as anyone else? No.

You're just looking for stereotypical bad guys to slaughter. When the Reapers turn out to be victims as well, instead of actually stopping to think whether you should still hit the 'kill them all' button, you just hit it anyway. You slaughter them anyway, because you were promised something to kill, and by damn you're going to kill something for your own satisfaction. You've no appreciation of the higher narrative on offer. You just want to kill things.

And this is what separates us. An exceptional person appreciates a narrative in which these variables are presented. Others just want a dumb plot where, essentailly, Gud Guys Kill Dem Bad Guys. And that's all there is to it. Don't talk to me about the Reapers and forgiveness, because that never entered your head, or the heads of those like you. My poll proves it, it proves it absolutely, and that's why I often refer to BSN as an anti-intellectual ghetto. It's the same reason the ME3 ending was so reviled -- because it tried to make people think. You know, as opposed to pulling the trigger to kill things.

I understand what the Reapers are -- victims. I'm exceptional enough of a person to understand and appreciate that. And I'm an exceptional person in my ability to desire their ethical treament. It's easy to forgive them because it was never their fault.

It's a simple matter according to ethics:

The Reapers are victims of mind and body rape. If you kill a rape victim without even giving them a chance, then you're a monster. You're the monster -- not the Reapers. Plain and simple.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 18 mai 2013 - 06:46 .

[Indy_S]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Does it matter to you and those lilke you that the Reapers were controlled and forced to do these things? No.

Does it matter to you and those like you that, once freed, the Reapers are peaceful, benign creatures? No.

There it is again. The claim that they're somehow freed in Synthesis. There is no evidence of this. And if they are never freed, it becomes impossible to judge them separately.

And this is what separates us. An exceptional person appreciates a narrative in which these variables are presented. Others just want a dumb plot where, essentailly, Gud Guys Kill Dem Bad Guys. And that's all there is to it. Don't talk to me about the Reapers and forgiveness, because that never entered your head, or the heads of those like you. My poll proves it, it proves it absolutely, and that's why I think. You know, as opposed to pulling the trigger to kill things.

Firstly, your poll lacks all the context you're ascribing it. Secondly, it is wrong to accuse people of not considering some of the facts: they may have considered them and found them irrelevant. Thirdly, that is not the reason Mass Effect 3's ending was so reviled, guess again.

Modifié par Indy_S, 18 mai 2013 - 06:53 .

[AresKeith]

Auld Wulf wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Phatose wrote...

[...] according to Christianty, everybody is worth forgiving.

Most Religions share that theme.  And most people don't live up to it.

[...] of course most people don't live up to it, because we view them as guidelines which is what they actually are

Some people can most certainly live up to it, but they are exceptional people.

I stopped reading right here, but I'm assuming somewhere below you insulted me by saying monster, luddite, or other words

[AresKeith]

And if you wanna call the "Reapers victims" then I put the organics that were harvested by the Reapers at peace

[Zazzerka]

Auld Wulf wrote...

I'm exceptional enough of a person to understand and appreciate that. And I'm an exceptional person in my ability to desire their ethical treament.

Then why don't you quit playing video games, and instead focus on providing power for the entire world by harnessing all that sun you've got shining out your arse.

[Phatose]

Zazzerka wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Who would you prefer?

Would Buddha have agreed?
Would Superman have agreed?
Would Batman have agreed?

How about no-one? Are you incapable of making decisions that aren't based on what x would do?

I'm quite capable.

And it's a very simple question to me. 

Which is the good path?  The one who kills out of fear?  Or the one who risks themselves, and all they love, in the name of forgiveness?




I don't agree with Auld here, though I certainly disagree with the way he is treated.  The reapers aren't victims, they're monsters.  Or maybe they are victims....but they're still monsters.

I don't care.

I'm given the option of bringing those monsters back.  I can make them something other then monsters.

If I destroy them instead of saving them, I'm more of a monster then they are.

Modifié par Phatose, 18 mai 2013 - 07:01 .

[Yestare7]

Auld Wulf wrote...

Were the Reapers responsible for what they did? No.

Were the Reapers responsible for what they became? No.

Did the Reapers have any say in this whatsoever? No.

The Reapers are victims.t, once freedarrative on offer.

...Stands up...  "I am a luddite, and I know the tune of this song!"



Y

[Yestare7]

Zazzerka wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

I'm exceptional enough of a person to understand and appreciate that. And I'm an exceptional person in my ability to desire their ethical treament.

Then why don't you quit playing video games, and instead focus on providing power for the entire world by harnessing all that sun you've got shining out your arse.

LOL

[AresKeith]

Phatose wrote...

Zazzerka wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Who would you prefer?

Would Buddha have agreed?
Would Superman have agreed?
Would Batman have agreed?

How about no-one? Are you incapable of making decisions that aren't based on what x would do?

I'm quite capable.

And it's a very simple question to me. 

Which is the good path?  The one who kills out of fear?  Or the one who risks themselves, and all they love, in the name of forgiveness?

What makes you think we picked Destroy out of fear?

[Indy_S]

Phatose wrote...

I'm quite capable.

And it's a very simple question to me. 

Which is the good path?  The one who kills out of fear?  Or the one who risks themselves, and all they love, in the name of forgiveness?

The first. The second is a gambler who doesn't know when the stakes are too high.

[Zazzerka]

Phatose wrote...

Which is the good path?  The one who kills out of fear?  Or the one who risks themselves, and all they love, in the name of forgiveness?

There is no right answer to that.

[dreamgazer]

Auld Wulf wrote...

The Reapers are victims of mind and body rape. If you kill a rape victim without even giving them a chance, then you're a monster. You're the monster -- not the Reapers. Plain and simple.

You're aware of how much of a sensationalist farce this is, right? 

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

Auld Wulf wrote...

The Reapers are victims of mind and body rape. If you kill a rape victim without even giving them a chance, then you're a monster. You're the monster -- not the Reapers. Plain and simple.

You're aware of how much of a sensationalist farce this is, right? 

This is Auld Wulf we're talkin bout

[Phatose]

Zazzerka wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Which is the good path?  The one who kills out of fear?  Or the one who risks themselves, and all they love, in the name of forgiveness?

There is no right answer to that.

I believe there is.  We hold up self sacrifice as a virtue.  It's those who do the right thing when it's hard, when it's risky, when it's not obvious - those are the one who are truly brave.  Those who sacrifice their fellows because it's easier?  Those are not good men.  And those who redefine who their fellows are, from everyone, when it's convenient?  Even worse.

[Zazzerka]

Phatose wrote...

I believe there is.  We hold up self sacrifice as a virtue.  It's those who do the right thing when it's hard, when it's risky, when it's not obvious - those are the one who are truly brave.  Those who sacrifice their fellows because it's easier?  Those are not good men.  And those who redefine who their fellows are, from everyone, when it's convenient?  Even worse.

There are more shades of grey than you care to believe. "Good" and "right" are not mutually inclusive.

You could destroy the reapers and have them turn out innocent, or you could forgive the reapers and have them kill your family later on. You could kill the reapers and have them turn out guilty, or you could forgive them and have them bake your family a cake.

Forgiveness is not always the good choice. Killing is not always the good choice. But they can both be right.

Modifié par Zazzerka, 18 mai 2013 - 07:20 .