210 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

@OP:
An interesting take on it. The problem is that "Paragon" isn't very well defined. I have identified three main types of Paragons, and every one of them would choose a different ending:

(1) The idealistic Paragon is the one you're speaking of. This one believes that their decision should be ruled by the principle of respecting all life, and that anyone can be redeemed, even the Reapers. They also acknowledge that the Reapers are as much victims as perpetrators of the cycle and don't necessarily deserve to be destroyed or continue to be enslaved. These paragons furthermore believe that the Catalyst's mention of perfection is meaningful and beneficial to galactic civilization, and that "biochemical purity" is a lesser issue.
The main theme of Synthesis is advancement and a belief in transforming the human condition.

(2) The pragmatic Paragon is concerned with saving as many lives as possible, but they're not as idealistic. Control is their decision because it saves most lives including the geth but doesn't risk letting the Reapers go free as Synthesis does, and doesn't make a fundamental change to all life with mostly unknown consequences. Their plausible reasoning includes the possibility to let the Reapers go free at a later time should they prove to be no danger to civilization any more, and the possibility of a slower-paced Synthesis where people have a choice about it. (Synthesis-after-Control is one of the more popular projected outcomes).
The main theme of Control is order and deferring any decision about changes in the human condition to a time when more is known about the possible consequences.

(3) The traditionalist Paragon is concerned with preserving the integrity and freedom of organic life against the domination (Control) or intrusion (Synthesis) of the "machines". Tradtionalist Paragons don't believe that the Reapers are really alive, even less valid surrogates for the civilizations they were made from, and neither do they believe that synthetic life is valid life in the same way organic life is (Chakwas' stance in the pre-Rannoch conversation with Adams). They also tend to believe that traditional principles of justice and retribution are applicable to the Reapers and thus tend to choose Destroy.
The main theme of destroy is freedom and an aversion against changing the human condition.

All three main themes can be part of a Paragon mindset, so you can't say that "A Paragon Shepard" would choose Synthesis. I can make a similar claim for Renegades, though they tend to avoid Synthesis as a rule because they tend to be more risk-averse than Paragons.  

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 janvier 2014 - 11:59 .

[Mathias]

"Oh hey Reapers! Look, I know you killed all my friends, turned my family into Husks, destroyed my home, and severely crippled my state of living for the next 5-10 years, but thanks to Space Magic I understand you now. So let's let bygones be bygones and just be bros from now on."

You have to be a real child to buy into Synthesis and think it's a well written ending.


All 3 choices are rubbish btw, I thought we discussed this BSN?

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 13 janvier 2014 - 01:50 .

[sharkboy421]

Perhaps I didn't read close enough but I'm still going to disagree.  For me, my issue is with the endings revolving around the idea that organics and synthetics will always be in conflict.

Other than the catalyst making that claim, I cannot find evidence to support this idea.  Every instance of the two fighting either involved the Reapers (their influence or direct contanct) or the organics struck first.  In fact the game loves to play up the idea of two opposing sides getting over their differences and coming together.

Will the peace last? I don't know, but the idea that conflict will always arise feels very forced and unnatural to me after everything I've seen in the games.  So I disagree that synthesis is a Paragon Shepard's canon ending.  I also disagree with the idea of a canon ending until Bioware says otherwise, but that is another issue.

I won't say control or destroy are any better, but I don't have such a strong feeling or narrative dissonance that I do with those two as I do with synthesis. 

[dreamgazer]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

All 3 choices are rubbish btw, I thought we discussed this BSN?

If we stopped talking about things that the BSN considers "rubbish", we wouldn't have very much to discuss.

Hell, the entirety of ME2's plot wouldn't get discussed. 

[Comrade Wakizashi]

 I think it's important to note that Synthesis is the best possible option according to the Intelligence. It is an opinion.
An opinion held by an AI that is responsible for billions of deaths over millions of years. I wouldn't exactly call that an objective or even trustworthy source. The idea that Synthesis is the epitome of evolution is an idea that has been created and propagated by the Intelligence itself.

However, the Intelligence is not a god or a divine being. It is itself a creation of the Leviathans. A creation that, by excessive use of logic, turned its original purpose of preserving peace between synthetics and organics into a self-declared quest to destroy organics and synthetics alike in order to "save" them. This is a line of thinking that is rationally understandable to exist in the mind of an AI. But this does not mean it is morally right.

I'm not saying the Intelligence is "evil". I think its incapable of moral decisions, and is therefore neither good nor evil. It is merely a machination that exists to fulfill its own "logically" exaggerated purpose. This has nothing to do with moral decisions by itself. Morality is something else entirely, and can onlye exist in life forms that have trye self-awareness and can think and reason for themselves. The Intelligence cannot do that, it is stuck in one narrow line of thinking ever since it was created. It is not self-aware in the way the Geth and EDI are. It is not capable of moral decisions, so Synthesis by itself is neither a Paragon or Renegade ending. It's just one option.

Personally, I choose Destroy anytime. Let evolution take its natural, pace-by-pace path. Synthesis is logical by the Intelligence's logic. But then again I believe that logic is simply flawed. Perhaps synthesis is the final stage of evolution, who knows? But if it is, it will eventually happen. But I won't be the one that causes it.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@OP:
An interesting take on it. The problem is that "Paragon" isn't very well defined. I have identified three main types of Paragons, and every one of them would choose a different ending:

(1) The idealistic Paragon is the one you're speaking of. This one believes that their decision should be ruled by the principle of respecting all life, and that anyone can be redeemed, even the Reapers. They also acknowledge that the Reapers are as much victims as perpetrators of the cycle and don't necessarily deserve to be destroyed or continue to be enslaved. These paragons furthermore believe that the Catalyst's mention of perfection is meaningful and beneficial to galactic civilization, and that "biochemical purity" is a lesser issue.
The main theme of Synthesis is advancement and a belief in transforming the human condition.

(2) The pragmatic Paragon is concerned with saving as many lives as possible, but they're not as idealistic. Control is their decision because it saves most lives including the geth but doesn't risk letting the Reapers go free as Synthesis does, and doesn't make a fundamental change to all life with mostly unknown consequences. Their plausible reasoning includes the possibility to let the Reapers go free at a later time should they prove to be no danger to civilization any more, and the possibility of a slower-paced Synthesis where people have a choice about it. (Synthesis-after-Control is one of the more popular projected outcomes).
The main theme of Control is order and deferring any decision about changes in the human condition to a time when more is known about the possible consequences.

(3) The traditionalist Paragon is concerned with preserving the integrity and freedom of organic life against the domination (Control) or intrusion (Synthesis) of the "machines". Tradtionalist Paragons don't believe that the Reapers are really alive, even less valid surrogates for the civilizations they were made from, and neither do they believe that synthetic life is valid life in the same way organic life is (Chakwas' stance in the pre-Rannoch conversation with Adams). They also tend to believe that traditional principles of justice and retribution are applicable to the Reapers and thus tend to choose Destroy.
The main theme of destroy is freedom and an aversion against changing the human condition.

All three main themes can be part of a Paragon mindset, so you can't say that "A Paragon Shepard" would choose Synthesis. I can make a similar claim for Renegades, though they tend to avoid Synthesis as a rule because they tend to be more risk-averse than Paragons.  

An interesting point indeed, although what you describe as a "traditionalist Paragon" isn't necessarily that anti-synthetic as you tend to make it seem, I believe. According to your definition, I would indeed be a Tradionalist Paragon, since I'm not willing to take the risk of Synthesis for the sake of the Intelligence telling me it would be the pinnacle of evolution. However, I do consider synthetic self-aware life as equal to organic. I consider the geth and EDI to be as much alive as humans, asari, turians and so on. However, I don't think the Intelligence and the Reapers count as such. Neither of them have true self-awareness, since they cannot properly think for themselves and are stuck in a single mindset of Reaper domination.

An illustration of that is the fact that there are no such things as non-hostile Reapers. If Reapers were able to completely think for themselves, at least some of them would normally have broken with the old path of organic harvesting, since it is nigh impossible to have a species in which every specimen thinks alike. The geth, for example, do have true self-awareness in this way. That's what caused the split between the "true" geth and the heretics since Mass Effect 2. I do not think the Reapers (and that includes the Intelligence) are on the same level as the self-aware "truly living" AIs like the Geth and EDI.
I simply don't believe in the Intelligence's logic. The advice coming from the Intelligence is in my view simply an opinion like any other. An opinion coming from a loose AI that is far from infallible.

[Ieldra]

If you claimed that everyone who was a stuck in a single mindset wasn't truly self-aware, half of humanity wouldn't be considered self-aware.

Also, the claim that the Catalyst isn't self-aware is driven by aversion to its rationale for the cycle, not by any facts, in much the same way some people would call a human "insane" if their behavior doesn't meet certain ideology-driven criteria.

What is the measure of self-aware intelligence? That's up for debate, but whatever it is, we don't have enough data to deny it to the Catalyst. The Catalyst's claim about synthetics and organics suffers from simplified writing. At its basis lies the singularity hypothesis, the idea that once synthetic intelligence has surpassed human intelligence, it may become dominant and sideline and eventually make extinct organic intelligence by no deliberately hostile actions, but by simple mechanisms of evolution, by taking up all available space and driving other species extinct by much the same mechanism by which humans spread over the face of the Earth, making species after species extinct. It's a plausible enough hypothesis that I can suspend my disbelief for it as a premise of an SF story, and it is by no means "obvious nonsense".

Modifié par Ieldra2, 13 janvier 2014 - 03:39 .

[Comrade Wakizashi]

I do agree that wether or not the Intelligence is truly self-aware is up for debate, considering the fact that the definition of self-awareness itself is also a matter for debate.

However, I think the logic of the Intelligence is inherently flawed. It is drawing conclusions from certain developments it has experienced in the past, and is projecting them as a dogma for all eternity. Moreover, the idea that synthetic life would inherently destroy organic life is by itself just a theory. Note that the Intelligence never actually experienced the destruction of galactical organic life by synthetics, because it has always intervened way before this could possibly happen.
Interestingly and ironically enough, the only synthetic lifeform actually responsible for the annihilation of organic life are the Reapers themselves, be it in a slightly less dramatic way than the Intelligence himself predicts would happen if he didn't intervene.

The Geth, for example, seem to contradict the Intelligence, if anything. They are inherently uninterested in conflict with organics, and have no desire for expansion beyond their current homeworlds.

I believe the Intelligence's logic is impeccable in its own pattern. But that doesn't make it right or justified. In the bigger, overall picture, its logic is flawed.

[Ruadh]

"Synthesis is inevitable." - That is why in the billion years the Reapers have been genociding, synthesis has never happened. The catalysts bs must be super yummy, some people just lap that **** up.

To actually add something though, I feel the criteria that constitutes a true paragon is completely subjective. You can't just declare yourself an authority on what it means to be paragon or renegade, and expect everyone else to agree. I should also point out that simply declaring something as flawed/flawless, doesn't actually make it flawed/flawless, despite how many times you say it.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Okay, I'm walking down the street. Some dude with a magic space wand walks up to me and says "Hey! I'm going to change you down to your very DNA! I'll make you part mechanical-licious! It'll solve that itchy problem in the future for when the robots we make revolt against us - they won't - because we'll be sorta robots too! Stand still!"

Me: "Wait, I don't want to be changed hold on -"

Some dude: *waves magic wand* "Ta Da!"

Me: "You crazy fokker, you just changed me without my permission! What the... I feel violated! Get away from me! MOOOOMMMMMM!"

That's synthesis.

Dude: hey, I'm gonna have to kill you to settle a score I have with someone else. It's for the greater-good, though! Ready?

Me: Wha- ** gets stabbed ** UGH!!

Dude: kthanksbye lololol.

That's destroy.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

"Oh hey Reapers! Look, I know you killed all my friends, turned my family into Husks, destroyed my home, and severely crippled my state of living for the next 5-10 years, but thanks to Space Magic I understand you now. So let's let bygones be bygones and just be bros from now on."

I seem to remember responding to you about this a while back.

Oh yeah, it was here: http://social.biowar...60/317#17724411 (you didn't respond)

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The entire purpose of the Reapers was to obliterate all advanced civilization all the way to extinction, and their methods of doing so were chaotic and horrifying.

As if to say the way one commits genocide makes any difference, and the geth's version was Kosher because they didn't reanimate corpses. It's not like friends or family of murder victims ever say "well at least you didn't desecrate his corpse after you did it, so credit where it's due." It's arguing semantics at the end of the day: dead is dead.

You cannot compare a race of synthetics who fought out of self defense, towards an AI who's spent millions of years killing and huskifying trillions of people due to his failed logic.

How many quarians know the whole story behind the geth's rebellion?

And, more importantly, will knowing the story make quarian victims' family/loved ones forgive-and-forget so easily?

That quarian kid Jona lost both his parents to the geth. Good luck selling him that the geth's reasons were forgivable (I imagine the response will be about the same as the one I get from Destroyers when I remind them the Reapers were merely pawns in the great scheme of things -- that response being a healthy mix of both denial and apathy).

*edit*

That brings me to another point: geth actually had free-will when they nearly wiped out the quarians; Reapers did not.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 13 janvier 2014 - 04:20 .

[von uber]

"Thanks Shepard for making me self aware! Me and Bill (that's my arm, by the way) are going to go down to the Apollo Cafe - want to come?"

[Comrade Wakizashi]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Almostfaceman wrote...

Okay, I'm walking down the street. Some dude with a magic space wand walks up to me and says "Hey! I'm going to change you down to your very DNA! I'll make you part mechanical-licious! It'll solve that itchy problem in the future for when the robots we make revolt against us - they won't - because we'll be sorta robots too! Stand still!"

Me: "Wait, I don't want to be changed hold on -"

Some dude: *waves magic wand* "Ta Da!"

Me: "You crazy fokker, you just changed me without my permission! What the... I feel violated! Get away from me! MOOOOMMMMMM!"

That's synthesis.

Dude: hey, I'm gonna have to kill you to settle a score I have with someone else. It's for the greater-good, though! Ready?

Me: Wha- ** gets stabbed ** UGH!!

Dude: kthanksbye lololol.

That's destroy.

You have the choice between having the Geth die, which is indeed terrible, I admit ; or turning the entire galaxy into crazy abominations. I'm very sorry for the geth, but I'll take number 1.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

I don't think consequentialism is necessarily non-Paragon. If you need to make morally ambiguous choices to achieve a greater good in the end, in my book that is more Paragon than making Paragon-only actions and ending up with a worse outcome. I agree with Mordin Solus in the way that helping people can also include killing the wicked.

It's the material result that matters. If everyone around you is dying because of your hesitation to do the necessary, they won't have much use for an "but at least I only did morally good things along the way!" kind of excuse.

Modifié par Comrade Wakizashi, 13 janvier 2014 - 04:35 .

[Iakus]

Synthesis is "paragon" in the same way Master Li was "open palm" in Jade Empire.

[Chashan]

dreamgazer wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

All 3 choices are rubbish btw, I thought we discussed this BSN?

If we stopped talking about things that the BSN considers "rubbish", we wouldn't have very much to discuss.

Hell, the entirety of ME2's plot wouldn't get discussed. 

Looking at where this thread is headed, the subject matter does qualify for that irregardless of whichever consensus there may be here, though. And is worth about just as much.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

On a slightly different note: anyone else noticed that in the Extended Cut, the Intelligence no longer actually says the Geth will die? I wonder if it was overlooked in the extended cut?

[His Name was HYR!!]

StreetMagic wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Dude: hey, I'm gonna have to kill you to settle a score I have with someone else. It's for the greater-good, though! Ready?

Me: Wha- ** gets stabbed ** UGH!!

Dude: kthanksbye lololol.

That's destroy.

That isn't Destroy. I don't even tell the hostage I'm going to kill them.

Yep. It's a flawed analogy. I did that on purpose.

ill get back to this later, on my cell and I have to bolt.

[von uber]

"So you can't help me, Doctor? Have you got any idea how awkward my screech is in bed? I mean seriously.., I wish I could go back to the good old days where the neighbours didn't complain because I just murdered them. Still, thanks Shepard!"

[jstme]

Not my paragon Shepard. The choice to eliminate entire form of existence because some murderous broken artificial (lack of) intelligence suggests new "solution" is not even going to be considered.

[Invisible Man]

I believe bioware simply didn't think the ending through. however, we really don't know what specifically happens after each ending, or al least we don't have enough information to make any judgment call about which outcome is best or just better. as for the writers belief of what the desired outcome is, synthesis only becomes an option at higher ems levels. that should mean something, right?