39 réponses à ce sujet

[DeathScepter]

depends how you write your heroes and villians. To me, it is how you handle it. Reaper Tech is just a tool. It can be good or bad if handle correctly.

[Kabooooom]

TIM was indoctrinated at the end, without any question, and the evidence strongly supports that he had been for a long time. See the discussion going on in the other thread for details.

To address your point about sanctuary - just because someone is indoctrinated doesn't mean the don't have free will. In fact, the LESS freedom they have, the more useless they are as an indoctrinated servant. This was told to you in ME1. Just as Saren could create an entire research facility to study the effects of indoctrination - so too could TIM create sanctuary and study how to control them. There's no way the reapers could have truly perceived that as a threat. All he could do was control some husks.

A much more interesting proposition with that is that the reapers actually wanted him to believe he could control them, thus deliberately allowing him to construct Sanctuary. This is totally supported by Javik, who tells you that in his cycle an indoctrinated splinter group - akin to Cerberus - wanted to control the reapers and sabotaged their Crucible project. This possibility leads to much more interesting story/motive speculation if you think about it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

TIM was indoctrinated at the end, without any question, and the evidence strongly supports that he had been for a long time. See the discussion going on in the other thread for details.

No it doesn't. He could not have been indoctrinated through the events of Mass Effect 2, or they would not have let him undermine their plans as much as he did: stealing Shepard's body from their grasp, wiping out the Collectors, destroying/acquiring the human Reaper.
 
Cerberus itself was set up expressly to fight the Reapers, he just couldn't identify the obscure alien threat he saw in visions as "the Reapers."
 

To address your point about sanctuary - just because someone is indoctrinated doesn't mean the don't have free will. In fact, the LESS freedom they have, the more useless they are as an indoctrinated servant.

 

False. Indoctrinated thralls do not have free-will. The Mass Effect novels prove this. Paul Grayson could not commit suicide like Saren or TIM could because the Reaper voices in his head guided his thought processes away from it. Dr. Kenson cannot be convinced to stand down in Arrival DLC either, she's totally fargone. Saren and TIM could do it only because their indoctrination had not completely set in (but they were both screwed since they implanted themselves with Reaper-tech).

Speaking of the novels, the book's narration does not similarly detail Reaper voices inside TIM's head as it does for Paul Grayson. If ME:E was supposed to be evidence to us that TIM was indoctrinated long ago, why doesn't the novel reaffirm that point?

 

There's no way the reapers could have truly perceived that as a threat. All he could do was control some husks.

 

Except the game shows that the Reapers were threatened by the Sanctuary facility enough to send the Reapers to destroy it.

Starbrat also indicates being opposed to the Control option of the Crucible. In Low-EMS states, he is hostile to Shepard if Control is the only option, just like he is if Destroy is the only option. At Mid-EMS (Control and Destroy only), he is still hostile. As of EC, he clearly says he does not look forward to Shepard taking control of the Reapers.

 

And really, why would the Catalyst or Reapers welcome being replaced or enslaved respectively?

 

A much more interesting proposition with that is that the reapers actually wanted him to believe he could control them, thus deliberately allowing him to construct Sanctuary. This is totally supported by Javik, who tells you that in his cycle an indoctrinated splinter group - akin to Cerberus - wanted to control the reapers and sabotaged their Crucible project. This possibility leads to much more interesting story/motive speculation if you think about it.

 

That's like saying the Reapers would have deliberately allowed the Crucible to be built because there would have been construction deaths in the process of making it. Some organics getting killed, or even indoctrinated, is not some huge victory to the Reapers. They can win the war with us by virtue of being immortal machines -- organics simply can't keep fighting over centuries while their essential resources slowly go down the drain.

 

Only if the galaxy creates some device that tips the scales back in their favor could they ever hope to win, and if there was any remote chance of that happening, the Reapers would not allow it to so much as get started -- no matter how high-risk the undertaking may be. There's no reward for them worth taking that chance; they are assured victory without it anyway.

 

Controlling husks was a significant breakthrough at Sanctuary because Cerberus was only one step away from extrapolating that one step further to controlling the Reapers. TIM's plan to stop the Reapers actually had some rhyme-and-reason behind it (turn the Reaper's control-signals against them), unlike Shepard's, which was to blindly put all his chips behind some ancient alien device nobody understood.

[AlexMBrennan]

No it doesn't. He could not have been indoctrinated through the events of Mass Effect 2, or they would not have let him undermine their plans as much as he did: stealing Shepard's body from their grasp, wiping out the Collectors, destroying/acquiring the human Reaper.

That sorta assumes that the Reapers have plans which make sense to regular humans, which is evidently not the case (e.g. their invasion fleet set off to arrive well before the Collectors could possibly finish their mission if you do Arrival before you finish the main quest)

[zestalyn]

The one guy who came closest to fully harnessing Reaper technology shot himself in the face while expending many resources and innocent lives. Reap tech is generally not very predictable. The Reapers themselves are very good at being sneaky with their indoctrination. And they're also pretty good at annihilating the universe. 

Of all the ways advanced civilizations can potentially purse for the improvement of intergalactic civilization, do we really have to turn to Reaper tech and and take those kinds of risks? Risk eventually resuming the harvest cycle, after everything people have sacrificed to mitigate the danger of Reapers? is humanity and all of the other races not resourceful or ingenious enough to come with other ways to better intergalactic society?

IMO  it takes a pretty pessimistic view of civilization to think Reaper tech is the only and best way to go... I personally like to have more faith in society to develop its own great technology. 

[CronoDragoon]

It depends on the Reaper tech. The mass relays are Reaper tech and the galaxy has been using them without being indoctrinated, so clearly not all forms of Reaper tech are inherently dangerous. If there's no danger of indoctrination, then they are neutral, just like any tech.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I have dedicated my life to studying the Reapers, and I know with certainty that the Crucible will allow me to control the Reapers. When humanity discovered the mass relays, there were those who thought they should be destroyed. They were afraid of what we might find out, afraid of what we might let in. But look at what humanity has achieved. When we discovered the Mars Archives, the technology we found there jumped us ahead centuries, and the Reapers will do that for us again a thousand fold. But only if we can harness the ability to control.

[DeathScepter]

this is why I was Disappointed with Mass Effect 3. So much potential so much facepalm.

[SwobyJ]

Reaper Tech controlled by Reapers remotely - Bad, with caveats

 

Technology of Reaper origin - Pretty much Neutral. Will take you down a path to 'Reaper Tech' (see above), but also can enable you to sidestep that entirely if you understand it.

 

TIM was under indoctrination. Shepard/Alliance sees such things as black and white, but TIM was fighting Reaper influence for years. Or rather, struggling against it. This struggle, if it had not happened, would have ended any chance of human defeat over the Reapers from the start. No TIM to encourage tech development? No Normandy. No TIM to bring Shepard back? Everyone dead. TIM's exposure to Reaper Tech was actually necessary for Shepard to be successful.

[KaiserShep]

Reaper tech is bad so long as the reapers themselves are hostile/existent.

 

I have dedicated my life to studying the Reapers, and I know with certainty that the Crucible will allow me to control the Reapers. When humanity discovered the mass relays, there were those who thought they should be destroyed. They were afraid of what we might find out, afraid of what we might let in. But look at what humanity has achieved. When we discovered the Mars Archives, the technology we found there jumped us ahead centuries, and the Reapers will do that for us again a thousand fold. But only if we can harness the ability to control.

 

It's funny, because that means that humanity came pretty close to wiping out its own star system.

[Kurt M.]

If you can avoid being indoctrinated by every bit of scrap metal from Reaper tech you manage to get your hands on, I'd totally vouch for it. It's always a good idea to use the enemy's weapons against them.

 

At least as long as you use them for things like improving armor plating or circuits, and not sticking it into someone's brain.

[DeinonSlayer]

If you can avoid being indoctrinated by every bit of scrap metal from Reaper tech you manage to get your hands on, I'd totally vouch for it. It's always a good idea to use the enemy's weapons against them.

At least as long as you use them for things like improving armor plating or circuits, and not sticking it into someone's brain.

*cough* Legion *cough*

[Bardox9]

I refuse to label the use of Reaper tech as good or bad. It reduces the matter to infantile terms. There are benefits and dangers. Reaper tech that has the ability to manipulate electromagnetic fields, harmonics, optical displays, or is directly tied into neural pathways can influence/indoctrinate a subject given enough time. It doesn't do that on it's own. The Technology in itself is not malicious. It depends on how it is used and who is using it.

 

For Medical purposes, Shepard is proof that implants based on Reaper designs to enhance or even revive an organic body can be used without turning the patient into some kin of mutated monster. EDI and Legion are proof that "Reaper Code" can also be used and not result in the rise of Skynet. But the potential is always there. Disaster is possible with any technology. Doesn't make it good or bad. It just "is".

 

The Reapers themselves were not "bad". They were tools doing what they were created to do and their A.I.'s were programmed facilitate that function. Even the Catalyst can only be blamed so much for the massive slaughters. It did what it's Leviathan masters designed it to do. Preserve life at all costs. Warped as it's "solution" was, it was a logical one when viewed from the perspective of an artificial construct. Good, bad, right, wrong, justifiable, inhumane... these are abstract terms that mean nothing to such a creature.

[Kurt M.]

*cough* Legion *cough*

I assume you refer to his Reaper upgrades?

Well, since he didn't tried to kill Shepard or sabotage the Normandy, it's pretty safe to say that he wasn't indoctrinated.

[Farangbaa]

Grunt

Edi

 

Shepard.

[shodiswe]

The thing is, there are so many different types. The most dangerous type is obviously the stuff looted directly from a Reapership. Less dangerous would be inactive stuff, like Reaepr code, technology sketches.

Between ME1 and 2 we got the Acsention book where the Quarians Admiralty decide to go out there looking for reapertech or influence or Reaper ships to fight the Geth, or a new homeworld.
We know they didn't find a new homeworld, but they did aquire a new anti Geth weapon, something they hadn't been able to accomplish in the past 300 years.

While the tech might not have indoctrinated the Quarians, it gave the Reapers exactly what they needed. Which endedup biting the Quarians in their ass. But that's more likely because it was all a big setup and they were being used, possibly in more than one way.

The Turians used salvaged Reaper tech to reverseengineer new weapons to fight the Reapers. Admittedly those new weapons don't showup in ME3 other than in textform. From what we're told it didn't really hurt them.

EDI was constructed from Reaper tech. She hepeled Shepard and the crew on numerous occasions.

The Reaper code fragments Legion salvages and reverseengineers gave you a fleet to fight the Reapers and soldiers while delivering the Crusible. It was also mentioned they helped agaisnt the reapers with hit and run tactics before that.

The Reaper IFF allowed you to shut down the Collectors, even if it did bite you slightly, by being kind of a trap. Still, it worked as advertised.

Nevermind the fact that the galactic society is built on using Reaper tech, Relays, FTL, mass Effect weapons, all of it Reaper tech.

I would argue it isn't the tech itself, but rather the being/s behind it that are causing the problems, which can make things dangerous.

The Collectors would trade reapertech/collector tech for services rendered, like providing them with test subjects. That tech might not have been dangerous in itself and would give the owner an advantage. However there was a cost to aquiering it. Both moraly, and from a survival perspective, you were aiding an enemy that, in the longrun was going to wipeout your civilisation and store it as data.

The reaper artefacts that were stolen could still be actively connected to Reapers or the Catalyst and indoctrinate you.

So, the question is, is it humane or moral?

I don't think that the atempts to aquire new reaper tech is humane or moral. If it can indoctrinate people then ti's a risk to peopels health.
If you aquier it by handing over millions of people to the collectors or even if it's just a few that doesn't make it better. Even if all you do is deactivate the victims defences to aid the Collector harvest and make it easier I wouldn't call it moraly correct.
Sabotage to aid in the abduction of a collony for experimentation and sludgification doesn't seem moral or humane.

Using relays or FTL or stuff that's already readily available to the public doesn't seem as problematic. Does it become ok to use something if you didn't commit the crime that made the tech available to you? Don't know.

[shodiswe]

It's kind of like saving Maelons data. While it might be bad, saving it seemed like it might be best.
There is science that has been discovered orresearched using very questionable ethics, still, after the fact it's proven to be able to help a lot of people.

[Kurt M.]

It's kind of like saving Maelons data. While it might be bad, saving it seemed like it might be best.
There is science that has been discovered orresearched using very questionable ethics, still, after the fact it's proven to be able to help a lot of people.

 

So, I assume then that you (or your family) are totally volunteering for any "ethically questionable" experiment if it is for the sake of others?

 

It's soooo easy to say what you said when it only involves anyone else but you...

[Farangbaa]

So, I assume then that you (or your family) are totally volunteering for any "ethically questionable" experiment if it is for the sake of others?

 

It's soooo easy to say what you said when it only involves anyone else but you...

 

That's not what he said or implied.

 

He said it's a waste to throw away the data because it was obtained by questionable means.

[Mcfly616]

Good.....bad....

It's subjective.




Dangerous. It's definitely dangerous.

[DeathScepter]

All technology has the potential for abuse no matter the origins.

[Iakus]

Good or bad, it's very very dangerous.

 

Much of the tech is "sufficiently advanced" Not understood even to the point of violating physical laws as we understand them.  Not understanding the tech is in large part what made it so dangerous.

 

What made it "bad" was that in their rush to claim this power, many (like the Illusive Man and Henry Lawson) used brutal, inhumane methods to study it faster.  And even then it was more how to utilize the tech and less on actually understanding it.

[I Tsunayoshi I]

No it doesn't. He could not have been indoctrinated through the events of Mass Effect 2, or they would not have let him undermine their plans as much as he did: stealing Shepard's body from their grasp, wiping out the Collectors, destroying/acquiring the human Reaper.

 

Gonna go ahead and debunk this. Yes, he was indoctrinated. What he thought was helping Shepard, was attempts to help the Reapers. Horizon being used as bait, why pick a world with the VS on it? Picking any colony and making the claim the VS was there would have gotten the same result. Collector Ship? TIM lied blatantly about the Turian distress signal and sent Shepard into a trap that almost got them caught and the Normandy destroyed again.

 

The Reaper IFF was a mixed bag cause it wasnt going to help anyone in any form unless Shepard died.

 

TIM's argument for keeping the base instead of wiping it out was the argument of a man who was indoctrinated and looking to make it spread through the rest of his organization.

 

Now unless you wanna claim that Evolution is full of crap and the writers were lying in official canon material, drop the idea that TIM wasnt indoctrinated.

[Mrs_Stick]

So, I assume then that you (or your family) are totally volunteering for any "ethically questionable" experiment if it is for the sake of others?
 
It's soooo easy to say what you said when it only involves anyone else but you...

Bakara did and she would do it again. Just because the experiments used are not up to your ethical standards doesn't mean they should not be saved. Otherwise ever person that died did it for nothing. At least try to make them count for some good. That's why my Shepard saves it every time.