233 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

The closiest equivalent for reapers in the real world - **** Germany, with its deliberate genocide politics.
Looks how great that worked for them and their leaders. And reapers are all guilty, in comparison to.

You were talking about old enemies working together after the war ends. The allied nations worked with germany, and with japan, and with italy, after world war 2 ended. We didn't just glass everyone because of how evil they were and made sure the countires were eternally wipped off the face of the planet. And if you look back even further, you see hundreds of examples of formerly hostile countries working together after their war ends.

The only countries who don't try to work together after a war ends tend to be war torn, third world, failed or failing states.

No, you missed my point yet again.
I said, that those, who were responsible for genocide, were hunted down and executed.
And reapers are all guilty, in comparison to German civilian population.
No way that there could be any cooperation between reapers and ME races, without total brainwashing. This is obvious.

[Ryzaki]

@OP : I really really doubt it. They didn't even consider the negative implications (Or at least fan backlash) from the original POS endings.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 juin 2013 - 02:12 .

[Argolas]

Mass Effect is a game and never claimed to be more than that. It has no ethical implications on the real world whatsoever.

[Iakus]

David7204 wrote...

To everyone who's every gleefully shilled 'tough choices' - this is exactly what you asked for.

A 'tough choice,' by definition, means that one choice cannot be clearly 'better' than the other or others. All choices must be grey. Which means all choices basically need to have equal outcomes. Which means that if you or the general fanbase finds an option repulsive - too bad. That choice will always be portrayed as more or less equal to other choices.

ANd then there's the situation where every choice sucks, ther's no joy to be found in any of them.  WHich is where a lot of people found themselves in ME3.

A genuine "tough choice" should have something going for it as well as drawbacks.  "Yay, I didn't kill the galaxy" simply isn't enough. 

[AlanC9]

Maxster_ wrote...

I said, that those, who were responsible for genocide, were hunted down and executed.
And reapers are all guilty, in comparison to German civilian population.
No way that there could be any cooperation between reapers and ME races, without total brainwashing. This is obvious.

Is this an argument about how people would feel about the Reapers, or whether the Reapers were actually responsible for their own actions? These are two fairly different questions.

I suppose a system could start firing on Reapers trying to repair the local relays. No sense firing back -- if they want to become a galactic backwater, let them.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...


A genuine "tough choice" should have something going for it as well as drawbacks.  "Yay, I didn't kill the galaxy" simply isn't enough. 

Shouldn't that be "Yay, I saved the galaxy"?

[Argolas]

iakus wrote...

David7204 wrote...

To everyone who's every gleefully shilled 'tough choices' - this is exactly what you asked for.

A 'tough choice,' by definition, means that one choice cannot be clearly 'better' than the other or others. All choices must be grey. Which means all choices basically need to have equal outcomes. Which means that if you or the general fanbase finds an option repulsive - too bad. That choice will always be portrayed as more or less equal to other choices.

ANd then there's the situation where every choice sucks, ther's no joy to be found in any of them.  WHich is where a lot of people found themselves in ME3.

A genuine "tough choice" should have something going for it as well as drawbacks.  "Yay, I didn't kill the galaxy" simply isn't enough. 

I agree, a tough choice can be a positive choice as well. For example: Destroy destroys the Reapers but nothing else. Control works in an actually legit way, for example you choosing it means the Catalyst orders the Reapers to stop and then surrenders them to the council. Synthesis is not debatable to me.

A tough choice can be a choice of mutally exclusive extremely positive things, not a choice between frustrating war crimes or death of everyone.If that kind of choice was built up properly and made sense it would be fine, but just letting them pop out of nowhere while everything before that promised a pretty much happy ending is not.

[Argolas]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...


A genuine "tough choice" should have something going for it as well as drawbacks.  "Yay, I didn't kill the galaxy" simply isn't enough. 

Shouldn't that be "Yay, I saved the galaxy"?

Casualties are fine. Our hero being stripped of everything that defined her or him isn't.

[dreamgazer]

Argolas wrote...

I agree, a tough choice can be a positive choice as well. For example: Destroy destroys the Reapers but nothing else. Control works in an actually legit way, for example you choosing it means the Catalyst orders the Reapers to stop and then surrenders them to the council. Synthesis is not debatable to me.

How in the hell is surrendering the Reapers to the council a positive choice?

[Argolas]

dreamgazer wrote...

Argolas wrote...

I agree, a tough choice can be a positive choice as well. For example: Destroy destroys the Reapers but nothing else. Control works in an actually legit way, for example you choosing it means the Catalyst orders the Reapers to stop and then surrenders them to the council. Synthesis is not debatable to me.

How in the hell is surrendering the Reapers to the council a positive choice?

In the right hands, reapers are progress. I don't reject technology because what it has done in the past. Stop the Reaping, stop the Indoctrinating and the Reapers become highly advanced technolgy to study and use for the benefit of the galaxy, for example adapting their advanced engines for extremely ranged FTL travel that can lead us into new galaxies. I only destroy the Reapers because Control requires me *trusting* their sudden harmlessness and just puts them in control of another super-AI instead of the people. Synthesis, as I said, is off the table in the first place.

[AresKeith]

Argolas wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Argolas wrote...

I agree, a tough choice can be a positive choice as well. For example: Destroy destroys the Reapers but nothing else. Control works in an actually legit way, for example you choosing it means the Catalyst orders the Reapers to stop and then surrenders them to the council. Synthesis is not debatable to me.

How in the hell is surrendering the Reapers to the council a positive choice?

In the right hands, reapers are progress. I don't reject technology because what it has done in the past. Stop the Reaping, stop the Indoctrinating and the Reapers become highly advanced technolgy to study and use for the benefit of the galaxy, for example adapting their advanced engines for extremely ranged FTL travel that can lead us into new galaxies. I only destroy the Reapers because Control requires me *trusting* their sudden harmlessness and just puts them in control of another super-AI instead of the people. Synthesis, as I said, is off the table in the first place.

You can still get their technology from their dead corpses too 

[dreamgazer]

Argolas wrote...

In the right hands, reapers are progress.

Think long and hard about the council, either one, as the "hands" holding the Reapers.

[Maxster_]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

I said, that those, who were responsible for genocide, were hunted down and executed.
And reapers are all guilty, in comparison to German civilian population.
No way that there could be any cooperation between reapers and ME races, without total brainwashing. This is obvious.

Is this an argument about how people would feel about the Reapers, or whether the Reapers were actually responsible for their own actions? These are two fairly different questions.

I suppose a system could start firing on Reapers trying to repair the local relays. No sense firing back -- if they want to become a galactic backwater, let them.

Sure.
Like everyone suddenly forgets their action, especially those of current cycle. No fear, no hatred.
Sound like total brainwashing to me.

[Iakus]

Argolas wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...


A genuine "tough choice" should have something going for it as well as drawbacks.  "Yay, I didn't kill the galaxy" simply isn't enough. 

Shouldn't that be "Yay, I saved the galaxy"?

Casualties are fine. Our hero being stripped of everything that defined her or him isn't.

Exactly. And that's precisely what happens to my Shepard, regardless of the choice I pick (though Synthesis does take the "creepiest choice" award).

[CronoDragoon]

Argolas wrote...

Casualties are fine. Our hero being stripped of everything that defined her or him isn't.

Let's talk about this related to Control.

Paragon Control Shepard is just going to do the same thing that Commander Shepard has been doing in Mass Effect 3, and to some extent his/her entire life;; the difference is merely one in enforcibility. The real concern is about Shepard-AI "going wrong" and coming to a horrible conclusion like the Catalyst did. While that is indeed a valid concern, isn't this in the same realm as the krogan cure? You're risking the krogan starting another destructive empire, and there is precedent for believing that this will occur (history). But Paragon Shep takes that chance anyway because curing the genophage is the right thing to do.

Similarly, there is precedent for believing something will go wrong with Shepard-AI (history - the Catalyst) but he takes that risk to prevent great harm now (destroying synthetic allies, letting everyone die, fundamentally altering everyone's state of being).

So the only moral concern I see is for people who believe it is wrong to enslave the Reapers. But is that really the issue everyone has with Control?

[Argolas]

dreamgazer wrote...

Argolas wrote...

In the right hands, reapers are progress.

Think long and hard about the council, either one, as the "hands" holding the Reapers.

By "the Council" I don't mean the three dudettes/dudes in charge, I mean the political entity that resembles the galactic community. It would not be a secret project under their personal observation. The Reapers would be given to the galaxy's top scientists, just like any prothean technology was before.

[Argolas]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Argolas wrote...

Casualties are fine. Our hero being stripped of everything that defined her or him isn't.

Let's talk about this related to Control.

Paragon Control Shepard is just going to do the same thing that Commander Shepard has been doing in Mass Effect 3, and to some extent his/her entire life;; the difference is merely one in enforcibility. The real concern is about Shepard-AI "going wrong" and coming to a horrible conclusion like the Catalyst did. While that is indeed a valid concern, isn't this in the same realm as the krogan cure? You're risking the krogan starting another destructive empire, and there is precedent for believing that this will occur (history). But Paragon Shep takes that chance anyway because curing the genophage is the right thing to do.

Similarly, there is precedent for believing something will go wrong with Shepard-AI (history - the Catalyst) but he takes that risk to prevent great harm now (destroying synthetic allies, letting everyone die, fundamentally altering everyone's state of being).

So the only moral concern I see is for people who believe it is wrong to enslave the Reapers. But is that really the issue everyone has with Control?

The Reapers given to a single entity, AI or person, is wrong. I'd rather destroy them. Other than that, the conditions are not acceptable. If the Reapers are going to live it will require a formal surrender. As long as they keep killing they are to be destroyed, nothing else, no compromise, no exceptions. The Reapers slaughter while we speak to the catalyst, I don't negiotiate under such terms.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Let's talk about this related to Control.

Paragon Control Shepard is just going to do the same thing that Commander Shepard has been doing in Mass Effect 3, and to some extent his/her entire life;; the difference is merely one in enforcibility. The real concern is about Shepard-AI "going wrong" and coming to a horrible conclusion like the Catalyst did. While that is indeed a valid concern, isn't this in the same realm as the krogan cure? You're risking the krogan starting another destructive empire, and there is precedent for believing that this will occur (history). But Paragon Shep takes that chance anyway because curing the genophage is the right thing to do.

Similarly, there is precedent for believing something will go wrong with Shepard-AI (history - the Catalyst) but he takes that risk to prevent great harm now (destroying synthetic allies, letting everyone die, fundamentally altering everyone's state of being).

So the only moral concern I see is for people who believe it is wrong to enslave the Reapers. But is that really the issue everyone has with Control?

The krogan have been stopped before.  And with fewer races to stand against them. The Reapers have had an unbroken winning streak since the time of the Leviathans. 

Edit:  Plus the Shepalyst could get it into his head to enslave or otherwise restict teh freedoms of the other races "for the greater good" to protect them:  Outlaw certain weapons, restrict space travel, etc.  He may not become a second Catlayst, but may very well become another Ozymandius from Watchmen, or The operative from Serenity, and so on.

Modifié par iakus, 19 juin 2013 - 06:58 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

The krogan have been stopped before.  And with fewer races to stand against them. The Reapers have had an unbroken winning streak since the time of the Leviathans. 

So as I said, it's an issue of the scope of the power, and not the nature of the decision itself, which conceptually can be characterized as risking future harm to prevent current wrongdoing?

Also, do you really cure the genophage because you are confident they can be stopped if they try an empire? That sounds to me like consequentialist logic, which Renegades frequently utilize.

Edit:

iakus wrote...

Edit:  Plus the Shepalyst could get it into
his head to enslave or otherwise restict teh freedoms of the other
races "for the greater good" to protect them:  Outlaw certain weapons,
restrict space travel, etc.  He may not become a second Catlayst, but
may very well become another Ozymandius from Watchmen, or The operative
from Serenity, and so on.

Oh trust me, I know the downsides to Control. The point is that you can make exactly this same argument about the genophage cure, insofar as you are using future potentials to justify either doing harm (killing Mordin) or allowing harm to be done (continuing the genophage). But a Paragon will cure the genophage because he wants to do the right thing now, and because he's optimistic about the future. The same can be applied to Control, with the difference being the scope of the potential future harm.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 juin 2013 - 07:09 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...

The krogan have been stopped before.  And with fewer races to stand against them. The Reapers have had an unbroken winning streak since the time of the Leviathans. 

So as I said, it's an issue of the scope of the power, and not the nature of the decision itself, which conceptually can be characterized as risking future harm to prevent current wrongdoing?

Also, do you really cure the genophage because you are confident they can be stopped if they try an empire? That sounds to me like consequentialist logic, which Renegades frequently utilize.

I also cure the genophage because Wrex and Eve demonstrate that not all krogan are interested in war and conquest, they are capable of growing and changing.  The Reapers, in addition to being a lot tougher than the krogan to stop, show no such ability.  Leading me to question if they are even sentient.

[KaiserShep]

My Shepard was already a murderer long before reaching this point, so the position of the AI controlling massive weaponized robotic hybrids was not really in the cards anyway. As for the genophage cure, aside from loyalty to Wrex and some faith that the Krogan can change, the Krogan are relatively easier to deal with than the reapers (as well as good cannon fodder to curry favor with the Turians), so as far as risks go, I'd say they were outweighed by a large margin. I think Mordin would agree. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 juin 2013 - 07:13 .

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

I also cure the genophage because Wrex and Eve demonstrate that not all krogan are interested in war and conquest, they are capable of growing and changing.  The Reapers, in addition to being a lot tougher than the krogan to stop, show no such ability.  Leading me to question if they are even sentient.

But the Reapers are irrelevant in Control, because Shepard now controls them. So really the debate should be centered around the morality of becoming the new Catalyst, with the new Catalyst's directives being entirely translated from Shepard's memories.

[Iakus]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

It's only unethical if you twist it to be unethical.

- No one is getting hurt or killed, unlike Destroy and Control.
- Everyone retains their free will, unlike Synthesis.
- There's no more illogical fear of Synthetics or Organics, since they don't exist anymore.

Free will, huh?

Anyone have the freedom to opt out of Synthesis?  Like, say, Javik?

[KaiserShep]

He said that you don't have free will with synthesis, but technically do with Control. As for Javik, I'm pretty sure he'd consider you a failure in any of those options lol

Modifié par KaiserShep, 19 juin 2013 - 07:17 .