52 réponses à ce sujet

[BloodyMares]

Yeah the Reapers just have the "will to power."  Beyond Good and Evil and all that.

Reapers don't. Catalyst on that matter does but it doesn't as well since the little brat just running his program.
It's the same stupid idea for conflict as it is with quarians and the geth. In ME1 Tali says the first sign of trouble was when one platform asked 'the question' so they assumed that the Geth as a sentient 'race' would rebel because they were using robots as slaves. Nowadays humans are being used as 'slaves' (money is just an equivalent of food) from quarians' point of view yet people do not rebel globally and governments still exist and do their (not so useful in times) things. So again, why did quarians think that their synthetic tools would act as organics? Robots, even though AI, do not get tired, do not have feelings (feeling of being used). There was no reason to suggest they would rebel. But if they would, quarians screwed up big because they didn't even upload The Three Laws by Asimov first. If they were tech experts they would come up with similar 'laws' in form of a script, wouldn't they?

[Mouser]

Yeah the Reapers just have the "will to power."  Beyond Good and Evil and all that.

 

Is there a Godwin's Law equivalent for Nietzsche?

Incidentally those are the titles of Episode (Game) 1 and 2 of the Xenosaga Trilogy. The difference being, there, they made sense as the games drew heavily from his philosophy (and Gnosticism). The "Will to Power" is an interesting concept (I happen to agree with it) [FYI: the book by that title is not his magnus opus, just a collection of unfinished writings published after his death]. Most of all, Nietzsche  was the only existentialist of note to remain an optimist, while many others wallowed in despair or committed suicide.

 

From the little I've actually seen of the Reapers so far (started game 2, and have heard about the ending): They be evil, man. Like, Stay away from the VooDoo!

 

You could try to argue that a machine isn't capable of those kind of moral distinctions, but that argument falls flat as soon as you allow machines "self-awareness". Enough philosophizing, I've got critters to kill: "Run, my little chunks of XP! Run!!!"

[Arcian]

To start off, I have 25 playthroughs completed dlc included, every achievement, seen every possible outcome choices, and read every book. So when I say that there is no bad guy, it is a thought out opinion and not some person striving for attention.

The fact that you have to type up your Mass Effect resumé to support your argument means your argument is too weak to stand on its own.

Reapers are very much DEFINITELY bad guys. They murder trillions of innocents every 50,000 years. If intentions are what makes someone good, Stalin was a saint walking on holy soil consecrated with the blood of 60 million russian lives.

[General TSAR]

You could argue that Saren was a ruthless pragmatist who believed his plan would work and save trillions but unfortunately he drink more of the green kool-aid. 

 

Sovereign is the big bad. 

[ladyvader]

You could argue that Saren was a ruthless pragmatist who believed his plan would work and save trillions but unfortunately he drink more of the green kool-aid. 

 

Sovereign is the big bad. 

Sovereign was just a vanguard, the Reaper fleet is still out there.

 

Good doesn't implant people with Reaper tech plus other devices to explode someone's face off if they get caught.  Cerberus did those things.  The Illusive Man is as evil as one can become and he did all because he felt it was the right thing for humanity.

 

How can any one go to Horizon and see what Cerberus was doing to the refugees at Sanctuary and not call that evil?  How can anyone go to Aite and deal with Dr. Archer and not think what what Dr. Archer was doing to his brother, David, wasn't evil?

How can anyone read Retribution and see what Cerberus did to Grayson and think they're not evil?

The Illusive Man is one bad guy in the Mass Effect series.  

Here's my reaction to the thought of no bad guys in Mass Effect.

[Grandillusion]

TIM not an evil person?? We are talking about the same game right? As far back as the first game, Injecting soldiers with thresher mall 'blood' to see what would happen for one. I feel he was worse than the reapers for 'evil' due to that he would do anything to anyone for the pure power of control.

[General TSAR]

Sovereign was just a vanguard, the Reaper fleet is still out there.

 

Good doesn't implant people with Reaper tech plus other devices to explode someone's face off if they get caught.  Cerberus did those things.  The Illusive Man is as evil as one can become and he did all because he felt it was the right thing for humanity.

 

How can any one go to Horizon and see what Cerberus was doing to the refugees at Sanctuary and not call that evil?  How can anyone go to Aite and deal with Dr. Archer and not think what what Dr. Archer was doing to his brother, David, wasn't evil?

How can anyone read Retribution and see what Cerberus did to Grayson and think they're not evil?

The Illusive Man is one bad guy in the Mass Effect series.  

 

Cerberus is ruthless pragmatic not evil, they are sacrificing for the greater good, the protection of humanity. A human group personification of Saren. 

[ladyvader]

Cerberus is ruthless pragmatic not evil, they are sacrificing for the greater good, the protection of humanity. A human group personification of Saren. 

Again, really?

The ends never justify the means, only an evil person would say otherwise.  The path to hell is paved with good intentions.  Doing evil in the name of good is still evil.

[Bardox9]

There are plenty of "bad guys" through out the ME series, but few that can be called "evil". The Reapers are just machines fulfilling their programming. Saren, while morally corrupt, is not exactly evil. He is following a path to what he believes to be the only path to survival. Cerberus is an organization that is doing what it considers to be necessary for the defense and betterment of the human race, by any means possible. Which can mean some extreme things, but they are doing what from their prospective is right. Given his history, even TIM can't be considered evil either. He has seen the enemy and is doing what he believes is necessary to defend against it. Granted his reasoning is being twist via Reaper influence. All of these major enemies can only be accused of being misguided at most and not truly evil.

 

The only "evil" actors you can point to  are the Salarian and Batarian governments. The Salarians do all kinds of immoral and just plan evil things in the name of science and progress that they are rarely if ever criticized for. What we see at Sur'Kesh is proof of this (if you looked around at all the terminals on your path through the base). The Batarians supporting slavery and terrorist actions are all the proof you need for their monstrous nature. The encounter with the escaped slave  in ME1 is all the reason you need to kill as many Batarian soldiers and mercs  as you can. Even Aria, in all her viciousness, is an angel(perhaps archangel is a better term) compared to them.

 

Certain Krogan might be considered evil or just victims of their own brutal nature. Wreav is fairly d^ckish,

[Cheviot]

do you realize that this guy is either an idiot or a troll?

 

 

*gets the popcorn out*

You do realise that if people actually heeded posts like this, there wouldn't be as many obvious troll/dolt topics, and these forums would be much more fun?

 

Also, do you have any popcorn left?

[SwobyJ]

There are plenty of "bad guys" through out the ME series, but few that can be called "evil". The Reapers are just machines fulfilling their programming. Saren, while morally corrupt, is not exactly evil. He is following a path to what he believes to be the only path to survival. Cerberus is an organization that is doing what it considers to be necessary for the defense and betterment of the human race, by any means possible. Which can mean some extreme things, but they are doing what from their prospective is right. Given his history, even TIM can't be considered evil either. He has seen the enemy and is doing what he believes is necessary to defend against it. Granted his reasoning is being twist via Reaper influence. All of these major enemies can only be accused of being misguided at most and not truly evil.

 

The only "evil" actors you can point to  are the Salarian and Batarian governments. The Salarians do all kinds of immoral and just plan evil things in the name of science and progress that they are rarely if ever criticized for. What we see at Sur'Kesh is proof of this (if you looked around at all the terminals on your path through the base). The Batarians supporting slavery and terrorist actions are all the proof you need for their monstrous nature. The encounter with the escaped slave  in ME1 is all the reason you need to kill as many Batarian soldiers and mercs  as you can. Even Aria, in all her viciousness, is an angel(perhaps archangel is a better term) compared to them.

 

Certain Krogan might be considered evil or just victims of their own brutal nature. Wreav is fairly d^ckish,

 

I can't think of any character that is self-describably evil, blatantly so, because they love being evil. Even the krogan. And any entity that might be, is also 'corrupted' by something that can be regarded as external to how they would otherwise be as a person.

 

I wouldn't say that Bioware is very often grey with its morality (it wants the Hero Story at the core), but I don't think they want to have total White/Black mortality in anything. Even if something seems that way at first, there will certainly be a mission/quest or DLC/expansion or future game that trends in a different direction.

[DeathScepter]

You do realise that if people actually heeded posts like this, there wouldn't be as many obvious troll/dolt topics, and these forums would be much more fun?

 

Also, do you have any popcorn left?

 

 

yes i do have popcorn.

 

 

when posting in threads (good rules when posting on suspected idiot/troll threads)

 

1) take a step back and think if it is a troll thread or an idiot.

 

2) post accordingly if the op is an idiot or a troll

 

3) if the op is not a troll or idiot, post normally unless you want to go off topic or troll.

 

4) posting funny pictures like spiderman or batman, or even a sokka is always a good idea

 

5) get the popcorn ready regardless.

[nos_astra]

I can't think of any character that is self-describably evil, blatantly so, because they love being evil. Even the krogan. And any entity that might be, is also 'corrupted' by something that can be regarded as external to how they would otherwise be as a person.

Dr. Evil, maybe? Or his son ... Joker.

[Rosstoration]

It's interesting you use the words "evil" or "bad", they have some serious moral connotations. You can get overly philosophical and start proclaiming that there is no "evil" or "wrong" only popular consensus, but I don't think a Mass Effect forum is the right place for such a discussion, maybe try approaching a certified and published academic.

 

In regards to the Mass Effect universe, obviously people have different moral compasses (it's even a central theme in the game: paragon/renegade), but there are certain social universally accepted "evils" - murder for profit, torture, genocide etc. I think in these cases context and motivation make little difference. I would consider Saren "bad" despite the fact his intentions may have been the same as Shepard's, fundamentally. His actions and methods breach the realms of what I consider to be universal moral acceptability. Interpretation is obviously subjective, but I think it's a little naive/forcibly contrarian to proclaim no one in the Mass Effect universe can be considered "bad" just because they don't break your own personal moral code - despite the fact the boundaries of concepts like "evil" and "bad" are formed on collective consensus, and thus should be judged collectively.

[Linkenski]

Evil is kind of a subjective term I'd say.

 

The Reapers killed entire civilizations for billions of years without remorse. I'd call that evil. They don't think they're evil... I mean hitler probably didn't think he was evil either.

 

And I think that's not an outrageous comparison. Many of ME3's themes were heavily inspired by WW2 literature and cinema and the Reapers are kind of like space-Hitlers.

[Mouser]

Cerberus is ruthless pragmatic not evil, they are sacrificing for the greater good, the protection of humanity. A human group personification of Saren. 

 

Coming back to this. When TIM says he will pursue his goals "By Any Means Necessary", that's as strong an admission of evil as it gets in my book (his actions showing that he truly meant what he said). He was evil before Sovereign or any other reaper ever got to him. 

 

The Catalyst tries the same logic you are by comparing the Reapers to a force of nature like fire. That comparison fails though, because fire does not have self-awareness or make conscious choices, while the Reapers are and do. It doesn't matter whether a person believes they are evil or not - actions are what we judge others by.

 

Saying the Reapers are just following their programming is exactly the defense the Nazi's used at the Nuremberg Trials: "Just Following Orders".  The series clearly states that AI can go beyond their own programming and "evolve", just like any other living thing. EDI reprogramming her own self-preservation code would be a prime example.

 

Sticking even closer to the thread topic and title, a "bad guy" - ie: the antagonist, doesn't have to be evil. Misguided or even misinformed can work just as well. It would be closer to the truth to say Mass Effect has no "good guys", meaning no one is a pure paragon of virtue - they're all selfish and come with their own sets of other flaws. Legion is probably the most "good", with his willing self-sacrifice to awaken the rest of the Geth, though how dying exactly accomplished that is never really explained.

[Vazgen]

I think there is a degree at how far can an AI go with altering its programming. Headcanon follows - they can't alter their core function - the one task they were created to do. So EDI can't abandon her task of electronic warfare defense and Reapers can't abandon seeking the solution of the problem. EDI's self-preservation is a side function, one that will be overridden if forced in conflict with a primary function.

I prefer using this explanation to calling the Catalyst's reasoning a failure. That's just me though.

[Mouser]

The Catalyst's change in reasoning is symbolic.

 

When the Leviathan created him, he was 'innocent'. This let him come up with a solution that no one saw coming.

 

Did you notice the graphic imagery when the crucible joined? It's deliberately sexual. Once that 'joining' takes place, the 'innocence' goes away, which lets the Catalyst see things he couldn't before, so now new options are open.

 

Add to that he has no other frame of reference to use to give him ideas since he doesn't have anyone else to interact with. EDI has Joker and Shepard. Catalyst also follows the 'creation that ultimately destroys its creator' trope, which is interesting since he concludes that the creations will always destroy their creator.

 

EDI is a different case - with her shackles off, she's free to do whatever she wants, including overwriting her own programming. The only limitation she still has is the Normandy is still part of her 'body'. In this way, she's like the Geth. One may have started out designed to be a farmhand, but that doesn't limit what that Geth can do now.

 

Incidentally, while you're 'headcanoning'. Any guess as to why EDI isn't in the 'control' ending? Shepard controls all the Reapers, not all synthetics everywhere, from what I can tell, so EDI should still be functional. Why would Joker ditch her? (Especially since he has time to go pick up Liara if you used her down on the planet with you).

[Vazgen]

What do you mean? EDI is present in the Control ending. She stands in the back when Liara places Shepard's name on the memorial wall. Video

[Farangbaa]

The ending was sexual????????

Well if I ever needed a reason to play the game again...

[Undead Han]

Evil requires free will. They also have to be able to fully understand their actions. I'm not sure that is the case with the Catalyst, who is a slave to it's faulty programming, or the Reapers...who are the product of a combination of programming and indoctrination, and tied to the Catalyst's will in any case. They might be mass-murdering machines that need to be destroyed, but I'm not sure the label evil quite applies considering their limitations.

 

Having said that, there are plenty of evil characters in the Mass Effect universe even if it doesn't quite apply to the Reapers. Saren was evil, long before he became indoctrinated. The Illusive Man and Kai Leng are as well (pre-indoctrination), as are Aria T'Loak, Morinth, Zaeed Massani, the Yahg Shadow Broker, the Shadow Broker wet squad, Henry Lawson, Gavin Archer, and many of the pirates, mercs, slavers, and Terminus scum you encounter or hear about during the course of the games.

[Farangbaa]

I think there is a degree at how far can an AI go with altering its programming. Headcanon follows - they can't alter their core function - the one task they were created to do. So EDI can't abandon her task of electronic warfare defense and Reapers can't abandon seeking the solution of the problem. EDI's self-preservation is a side function, one that will be overridden if forced in conflict with a primary function.
I prefer using this explanation to calling the Catalyst's reasoning a failure. That's just me though.

Yeah, and helping the Quarians or killing them is also the same thing.



Though Geth are kinda special AI.

[Linkenski]

Mac Walters' change in reasoning is symbolic.

 

When Bioware created him, he was 'innocent'. This let him come up with a solution that no one saw coming.

WOW! Mind. blown!

 

That's my new interpretation. The ending is a self-projection of Mac Walter's going through the phases of becoming Lead Writer, then seeing the backlash and then failing to come up with a proper solution to the terrible endings.

 

The created will always rebel against their creators. Wow. Whole new meaning! Brave new world... LOTS OF SPECULATION

[Mouser]

What do you mean? EDI is present in the Control ending. She stands in the back when Liara places Shepard's name on the memorial wall. Video

 

 

Ah... I don't have the extended cuts. Good to see she's there though

[Undead Han]

Ah... I don't have the extended cuts. Good to see she's there though

 

If you ever go back and play ME3 you should try with the Extended Cut. Besides being free, it makes the endings a lot more palatable. They are still greatly flawed, but far superior to the original endings in my opinion.