210 réponses à ce sujet

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Malanek999 wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Refuse is a pure Paragons only choice. Being a Paragon is about remaining true to your ideals and values no matter what. They will not fight evil by committing a lesser evil even in the face of armageddon. Mandatory Synthesis would not even be considered by a paragon because trillions of people might not want to undergo genetic modification and a paragon couldn't make that choice for them.

I wouldn't call refuse Paragon. Allowing genocide of billions is in no way morally justifiable.

That's Paragon for you. Its not an ends justifies the means outlook...that is unquestionably renegade which is opposite. The point is that it isn't Shepard committing the genocide, so they will remain true to their values no matter what, they will keep fighting for what they believe. The Renegade is not evil, they will simply take account of the entire situation and be prepared to commit a small evil themself to avoid a bigger one from someone else.

It was very telling before the EC that so many people wanted a refuse option. They, rightly, considered all 3 choices morally unpalatable. So we got the refuse choice. The consequences are completely immaterial to the pure paragon.

There is a really great passage from a David Gemmell book, Dark Prince, about this. I'll put it up later.

But can you call that Paragon? Is that morally justifiable? Is it morally right to sacrifice the lives of others just to sate your own personal conscience? To me, that sounds like the most immoral thing you could possibly do.

[Malanek]

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Comrade Wakizashi wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Refuse is a pure Paragons only choice. Being a Paragon is about remaining true to your ideals and values no matter what. They will not fight evil by committing a lesser evil even in the face of armageddon. Mandatory Synthesis would not even be considered by a paragon because trillions of people might not want to undergo genetic modification and a paragon couldn't make that choice for them.

I wouldn't call refuse Paragon. Allowing genocide of billions is in no way morally justifiable.

That's Paragon for you. Its not an ends justifies the means outlook...that is unquestionably renegade which is opposite. The point is that it isn't Shepard committing the genocide, so they will remain true to their values no matter what, they will keep fighting for what they believe. The Renegade is not evil, they will simply take account of the entire situation and be prepared to commit a small evil themself to avoid a bigger one from someone else.

It was very telling before the EC that so many people wanted a refuse option. They, rightly, considered all 3 choices morally unpalatable. So we got the refuse choice. The consequences are completely immaterial to the pure paragon.

There is a really great passage from a David Gemmell book, Dark Prince, about this. I'll put it up later.

But can you call that Paragon? Is that morally justifiable? Is it morally right to sacrifice the lives of others just to sate your own personal conscience? To me, that sounds like the most immoral thing you could possibly do.

Its NOT just to sate your own personal conscience. All the choices bring pain to others. Destroy sacrifices the Geth to destroy the reapers. Ends justify the means, small evil to keep others safe, obvious Renegade choice. Synthesis forces transmorgification on every living being at the whim of Shepard, again very obvious Renegade choice. Control is a bit more complicated and depends on motivation and intention. The way it is portrayed in the EC is Renegade imo, effectively seizing power. However I would be prepared to accept it as a paragon choice if your intention was to simply assume control to instantly destroy them and yourself.

I'm not saying Refuse is an intelligent choice, but it best reflects a pure paragon morality, which can be quite stupid.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

I suppose it depends on ones definition of Paragon or good morality.
A certain dose of "end justifies the means" is in my opinion absolutely necessary for good morality.
Morally good decisions that willfully lead to a negative ending (as is the case with Refuse) are not morally right in my book.

[RangerSG]

I can't see how overriding the will of every sentient being and forcing them, willing or no, to alter their DNA and become a semi-organic guinea pig is, in any way, "Paragon."

Sorry, Destroying the Reapers is a perfectly paragon choice given what they've done. And anything beyond that is accepting the "intelligence" at its word. Which given its bias in the matter, is something I can't imagine *any* Shepard doing.

[MrMrPendragon]

RangerSG wrote...

I can't see how overriding the will of every sentient being and forcing them, willing or no, to alter their DNA and become a semi-organic guinea pig is, in any way, "Paragon."

Sorry, Destroying the Reapers is a perfectly paragon choice given what they've done. And anything beyond that is accepting the "intelligence" at its word. Which given its bias in the matter, is something I can't imagine *any* Shepard doing.

I see Destroy as justice - not just for this cycle - but for all the previous cycles.

[Shuidizi]

Fine with me you think this way, but it by no means make it "canon", more like your "head-canon".

If you think I'm a renegade person then that's okay too, but no Shepard of mine would even consider synthesis. Destroy is the only ending I support and my Shepard choose, no matter the morality.

EDIT: I don't mind people liking or defending synthesis ending, but this OP has obviously gone too far.

Modifié par Shuidizi, 14 janvier 2014 - 03:09 .

[FlyingSquirrel]

RangerSG wrote...
Sorry, Destroying the Reapers is a perfectly paragon choice given what they've done. And anything beyond that is accepting the "intelligence" at its word. Which given its bias in the matter, is something I can't imagine *any* Shepard doing.

You don't have to trust the Catalyst implicitly to deduce, based on its statements and the evidence we've accumulated elsewhere, that it isn't lying. And if it isn't lying, then the Reapers have only limited responsibility for their actions in the first place.

Control and Synthesis don't really match what I would think of as a Paragon choice, but I think they're less Renegade than Destroy. Refuse is sort of Paragon in that it's a principled decision not to play by the Catalyst's rules, but unlike every other Paragon choice in the series, it leads to everyone getting killed. Renegades do at least get some consistency of theme and character in their ending choices. Paragons really don't.

[sevalaricgirl]

Honestly, don't you play it as your Shep sees it or do you just pick every single paragon choice. I play all RPGs in the first person, what would I do and damned if I let condemned murderers walk.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 14 janvier 2014 - 06:31 .

[element eater]

synthesis is the most morally repugnant choice possible if you ask me not that the other two are much better but they are no way on the level of synthesis the connotations of which are the stuff of nightmares

[AlanC9]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...
 Refuse is sort of Paragon in that it's a principled decision not to play by the Catalyst's rules, but unlike every other Paragon choice in the series, it leads to everyone getting killed. Renegades do at least get some consistency of theme and character in their ending choices. Paragons really don't.

Isn't this a problem with the Paragon concept itself? There's no reason the universe should let you achieve a good result by doing the "right thing" in every single circumstance.

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Isn't this a problem with the Paragon concept itself? There's no reason the universe should let you achieve a good result by doing the "right thing" in every single circumstance.

The rest of the series pretty much did that.

[FlyingSquirrel]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

Honestly, don't you play it as your Shep sees it or do you just pick every single paragon choice. I play all RPGs in the first person, what would I do and damned if I let condemned murderers walk.

Well, I have a number of different Shepards. The one I'm thinking of probably picked all the Paragon choices for major decisions but occasionally used Renegade dialogue - I just chose what felt most "in-character" for her (principled and idealistic, but occasionally a wise-ass and impatient with myopic authority figures). None of the three "victory" endings fit her character without some heavy headcanon.

And...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Isn't this a problem with the Paragon concept itself? There's no reason the universe should let you achieve a good result by doing the "right thing" in every single circumstance.

The rest of the series pretty much did that.

...yes, that's pretty much the point I'm trying to make. Whether you agree with a "Paragon philosophy" or not, Mass Effect did portray it as one that could lead to good outcomes. I personally *do* agree with it, but regardless of my own views, it's a bit of a bait-and-switch to reward that approach for 99.9% of the narrative and then shift gears at the last minute. (And I'm still not sure that Bioware even intended it to be especially jarring for Paragons, as opposed to just not thinking through some of the implications.)

Modifié par FlyingSquirrel, 14 janvier 2014 - 08:40 .

[Comrade Wakizashi]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

Honestly, don't you play it as your Shep sees it or do you just pick every single paragon choice. I play all RPGs in the first person, what would I do and damned if I let condemned murderers walk.

As do I. There are several times in the course of the games where I find the Paragon option to be really dull and naive.
Like warning the traitor of Garrus' team in ME2 of his imminent serving of justice by Garrus, for example. I try to see things as much first person as I can, and making the decisions my own. Which means Renegade here and there, if it means purifying the galaxy of the wicked.

[von uber]

I would say I play Renegade but in the sense that Renegade does not equal evil. So generally red conversation choices but with 'good' outcomes. I find it just seems to fit.

[RangerSG]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

I can't see how overriding the will of every sentient being and forcing them, willing or no, to alter their DNA and become a semi-organic guinea pig is, in any way, "Paragon."

Sorry, Destroying the Reapers is a perfectly paragon choice given what they've done. And anything beyond that is accepting the "intelligence" at its word. Which given its bias in the matter, is something I can't imagine *any* Shepard doing.

I see Destroy as justice - not just for this cycle - but for all the previous cycles.

That's how I see it as well. 

The problem with these questions is they assume both: 

1) That Shepard should unquestioningly accept what the leader of his enemies has said as truth with a level of certitude he hasn't shown his Superior Officers that he KNOWS, like Anderson and Hackett.

2) That just because the epilogue speculates something will be better than Destroy, it MUST end better. I might note that Bioware has overwritten epilogues before. More than once. 

As for Control being Paragon, I would think any Paragon would know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's an ending that, IMHO, would have no chance of ending well. Either the Reapers would slip the leash (as they have before), or Shep would turn into a God-Emperor version of himself and dominate everything "for the good of all."

Indeed, personally I consider that the most RENEGADE ending, since only a Shepard that thinks the Illusive Man didn't have a bad idea could honestly choose it. And only a Shepard after ultimate power themselves would think that way. 

There is ony one ending that assures the Reaper nightmare ends. And for even a Paragon, that is *all* that matters for Shepard for every moment of the game until the "Intelligence" makes its appearance. And I agree, it's justice for all the cycles. Every being that has ever been harvested. Every culture that was ever silenced. 

[FlyingSquirrel]

RangerSG wrote...
There is ony one ending that assures the Reaper nightmare ends. And for even a Paragon, that is *all* that matters for Shepard for every moment of the game until the "Intelligence" makes its appearance. And I agree, it's justice for all the cycles. Every being that has ever been harvested. Every culture that was ever silenced. 

The problem I have with these interpretations is that if you want justice, the Leviathans are the ones who really bear the most direct culpability. They didn't intend to start the harvests, but their whole reason for creating the Catalyst was that organic/synthetic conflicts were disrupting their ability to exploit other civilizations. The Catalyst is a poorly programmed AI, and the Reapers are really just its tools - it seems unlikely that they were created with the ability to disagree with the Catalyst's premises or rebel against it.

And it's not much justice for all the non-hostile AIs who are summarily and immediately silenced when you shoot the tubes.

[DonnyT]

For me, I felt there was little difference between synthesis and letting the reapers wipe out life and reset the cycle. The only difference is the form factor. Instead of life being synthesized and stored in the reapers, all life is synthesized together into some "evolution." I wasn't buying it.

First as has been pointed out, only 3 of 10 AI's in the game exhibit the behavior the catalyst warns against, and in all three of those cases outside influence caused the behavior.

Second, the catalyst is already proven to be wrong and fallible. The catalyst did not think you could reach the Crucible and get as far as you did. So why is it right about synthetics wiping out organics. It has never happened, so what would make us assume it ever would?

Third what makes synthetic vs. organic any different than organic vs. organic. Genocide has happened plenty in the galaxy. What paragon Sheppard proved though, is that we can learn from the past wars and realize that peace can work to. Sheppard united how many factions, races, and synthetics?

On Rannoch I was thinking back to the 80's movie WarGames. If a computer, a VI, an AI can learn that war is not worth playing, maybe organics can too! Give the galaxy a chance to evolve on its own.

Now as to what a paragon Sheppard should do, it is true that Sheppard has not wanted victory at any cost. However, the story makes it very clear, not everyone can survive this war. Priority: Earth isn't one battle. It's not a sacrifice a few to save a lot mission. It the embodiment of an entire war. I hated killing the Geth and EDI, but the Reapers had to be stopped. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and while Sheppard could have "controlled" the Reapers for some length of time, what happens when the lack of her humanity causes her to reason out a "solution" as bad as the catalyst's? Control is not an option, the cycle had to be broken so the galaxy could evolve naturally. That is why my Sheppard destroyed the reapers, as hard as a decision as it was, the story was always clear that it had to be a hard decision.

Nothing felt better than that stumbling walk towards the power conduit firing my gun every time it was ready to fire again!

So tell me, how is synthesis different than reaper harvesting?

[FlyingSquirrel]

DonnyT wrote...

So tell me, how is synthesis different than reaper harvesting?

Synthesis merges technology with organic life, but leaves everyone alive with their own identities and values. They may be less vulnerable to biological limits and able to process more information, but I didn't see anything to suggest that people were no longer themselves post-Synthesis. Reaper harvesting either kills everyone outright or amalgamates them into some kind of new collective intelligence under the control of the Catalyst.

And incidentally, I agree that the Catalyst is full of crap, in the sense that it's working from flawed assumptions and doesn't actually understand other life forms very well. I don't believe that *any* of the three choices are "necessary" to avert eventual synthetic extermination of all organics.

However, the fact remains that Shepard is only given three options (four if you count Refuse) and, for Paragons at least, is going to try to find the most humane way to end the war. Simply destroying all synthetics - including both allies (EDI and the geth) and what turned out to be essentially a race of slaves (the Reapers) - does not fit the bill. Which is not to downplay all the negative aspects of Control or Synthesis - I'm just saying that they aren't *as* bad  as Destroy from a Paragon perspective and can be headcanoned more easily.

[DonnyT]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

Synthesis merges technology with organic life, but leaves everyone alive with their own identities and values. They may be less vulnerable to biological limits and able to process more information, but I didn't see anything to suggest that people were no longer themselves post-Synthesis. Reaper harvesting either kills everyone outright or amalgamates them into some kind of new collective intelligence under the control of the Catalyst.

I disagree.  The Catalyst sells the synthesis option as a utopia.  Synthetics that would harm organics would no longer want to harm organics.  Conversely, organics who dislike synthetics, would instantly drop away their hatred and want to live in peace and harmony.  Yet you want me to believe that they retain their own identities and values, which included hatred for synthetics or organics?!?!?!  You can't have it both ways.  Some people are losing their entire belief structure by being synthesized and are no longer who they were.  This is a fact.  Given this fact, how much individuality do you think is actually retained?

[FlyingSquirrel]

DonnyT wrote...
I disagree.  The Catalyst sells the synthesis option as a utopia.  Synthetics that would harm organics would no longer want to harm organics.  Conversely, organics who dislike synthetics, would instantly drop away their hatred and want to live in peace and harmony.  Yet you want me to believe that they retain their own identities and values, which included hatred for synthetics or organics?!?!?!  You can't have it both ways.  Some people are losing their entire belief structure by being synthesized and are no longer who they were.  This is a fact.  Given this fact, how much individuality do you think is actually retained?

I don't think these changes just suddenly happen overnight. Maybe they do for the Reapers once the Catalyst's control is removed, but for somebody like, say, Wreav, I think his aggression would be tempered by being able to communicate with and understand other species more easily and learning not to see them as enemies. (Though as I've said, my own preferred interpretation is that the "upgrades" are inactive at first anyway and nobody is forced to activate them if they don't want to.)

[DonnyT]

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

I don't think these changes just suddenly happen overnight. Maybe they do for the Reapers once the Catalyst's control is removed, but for somebody like, say, Wreav, I think his aggression would be tempered by being able to communicate with and understand other species more easily and learning not to see them as enemies. (Though as I've said, my own preferred interpretation is that the "upgrades" are inactive at first anyway and nobody is forced to activate them if they don't want to.)

If that were the case, then synthesis doesn't break the "inevitable" cycle of organics getting killed off by synthetics.  Now I know we both agree this cycle doesn't necessarily exist, but the catalyst says synthesis will break this cycle.  To me that means immeadiate and drastic changes to who people are.  This is why I didn't even consider sythesis as an option.  There are simply too many holes in its potential outcomes.  You are in essense, making everyone into reapers, rather than having reapers consume everyone.  You can't say that is more humane.

Either it does what the catalyst says, and is therefore not humane.  Or the catalyst is wrong and you have absolutely no idea what consequences you are unleashing on the galaxy.  How a paragon could choose that is beyond me.

[AlanC9]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Isn't this a problem with the Paragon concept itself? There's no reason the universe should let you achieve a good result by doing the "right thing" in every single circumstance.

The rest of the series pretty much did that.

Mostly, yeah. It shouldn't have. Renegade options often turned out to just be wrong. Paragon options should be wrong sometimes too.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 janvier 2014 - 05:24 .

[Invisible Man]

DonnyT wrote...

FlyingSquirrel wrote...

Synthesis merges technology with organic life, but leaves everyone alive with their own identities and values. They may be less vulnerable to biological limits and able to process more information, but I didn't see anything to suggest that people were no longer themselves post-Synthesis. Reaper harvesting either kills everyone outright or amalgamates them into some kind of new collective intelligence under the control of the Catalyst.

I disagree.  The Catalyst sells the synthesis option as a utopia.  Synthetics that would harm organics would no longer want to harm organics.  Conversely, organics who dislike synthetics, would instantly drop away their hatred and want to live in peace and harmony.  Yet you want me to believe that they retain their own identities and values, which included hatred for synthetics or organics?!?!?!  You can't have it both ways.  Some people are losing their entire belief structure by being synthesized and are no longer who they were.  This is a fact.  Given this fact, how much individuality do you think is actually retained?

I didn't get that from the ending. as far as synthesis is concerned, all it says it that synthetics & organics understand one another; there's nothing that states all is forgiven, or that all the old arguments simply vanish, and every life form in the galaxy is sitting around a campfire singing songs and eating smores. 

[DonnyT]

Invisible Man wrote...

I didn't get that from the ending. as far as synthesis is concerned, all it says it that synthetics & organics understand one another; there's nothing that states all is forgiven, or that all the old arguments simply vanish, and every life form in the galaxy is sitting around a campfire singing songs and eating smores. 

Then how does it break the cycle?

[Invisible Man]

DonnyT wrote...

Invisible Man wrote...

I didn't get that from the ending. as far as synthesis is concerned, all it says it that synthetics & organics understand one another; there's nothing that states all is forgiven, or that all the old arguments simply vanish, and every life form in the galaxy is sitting around a campfire singing songs and eating smores. 

Then how does it break the cycle?

you mean that how does it keep synthetics form butchering organics? as the cycles are the catalyst's construct, the cycles are not the continuing systematic slaughter of organics by other non-reaper synthetics. it's fairly simple, lifeforms (even synthetic ones) don't seek war simply for the sake of war itself. there are always reasons behind it. and usually instigated at some point by a lack of understanding. not always, but from what I can tell most of the time (IMHO). I'm not talking about governments or leaders, I'm talking about the general population here.