77 réponses à ce sujet

[Kynare]

so the intergalactic mind and body rape of every sentient creature and all plant life is suddenly OK? Jeez. Who gave Shepard the authority to enable that? Nobody.

"Suddenly okay"? No. I doubt it would be that simple. That's why I didn't choose Synthesis, because I wasn't comfortable having my Shepard make that call at the cost of her own life--didn't seem like something she would do. I'm just saying that if Synthesis were a possible future (disregarding what it would take to achieve it, because that may be vastly irrelevant to the galaxy once they actually have it), there is merit to the concept.

[Monica21]

Honestly i'm interested how you became indoctrinated.

 

You could just ask for his opinion without getting weird about it.

[Batarian Master Race]

As far as I can tell, Destroy and Control are attempts at ignoring/side-stepping the problem and maintaining the status quo. Synthesis is the only option that attempts to address the problem head on.

 

This assumes you believe that synthetics and organics ARE destined to always come into conflict.

 

If there's one theme the Mass Effect series lives on, it's that people are free to make their own destiny. Just because something has always happened in the past, that doesn't mean it will continue to happen. Shepard can free the Rachni (another race people said would kill everybody), and they go and live in peace. Shepard can cure the Genophage, can reunite the Geth and the Quarians, can mend tensions between a racist and the races he looks down on... Shepard's all about breaking past trends.

 

If you don't believe the Catalyst's insistence that synthetics will always destroy organics, the options are seen in a different light. Control is the mental rape of entire civilizations, forcing them (and, by proxy, the rest of the galaxy) to bend to your will. Synthesis is a forced physical change to the entire galaxy, and has its own host of problems as well as being a solution to a problem that you believe doesn't exist. (Synthesis's problems include giving new consciousness to Scions and Husks, forcing them to be able to understand the emotions they once had while being unable to actually experience them. Quite literally turning them into husks of their former selves.)

 

Destroy is genocide, yes, but here's the important thing to remember. You MUST play by the Catalyst's rules. Mass Effect, a series which has focused on being able to persuade most of the enemies to change their ways (Saren, Illusive Man, nearly all of the sidequests), doesn't let you even argue with the insane AI. 

 

Your choices therefore are: A) kill an entire race, mind-control an entire race, or C) force the entire galaxy into a mental and physiological change that will not be beneficial for a large minority of them.

 

A and B have the least amount of repercussions, and as such are the best ways of playing along with the Catalyst. Which leaves me with a final question.

 

Is submission preferable to extinction?

[Dantriges]

One of the things I liked most about the ending was that it was a revelation of large problem that we'd otherwise rather not address or solve. The Catalyst described a systemic flaw in the collective behavior of life on a macro scale that would lead to organic annihilation. Its the kind of thing people really don't want to think about, let alone acknowledge. As a civilization, as a we grow in power and ability, these are the kinds of problems that reveal themselves to us.

 

You mean Ai development in real life today?   I think "Person of Interest" portrays the issue of AI better than Mass Effect did.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 
I wasn't super into the concept of Synthesis as a future at first, actually, but I read the beginning of your personal canon and it's pretty darn good. I love the concept you used where a new form of technology is made based off of the new synthetic upgrade.
 
My main problem was seeing my Shepard's LI with completely different eyes (maybe I was just feeling emotional because it was the end of the game, but something about not seeing Kaidan's beautiful brown eyes was like, HELL NAW.)

 

The thought of forcing that change wigged me out a bit. But after reading some your story, it occurred to me that the people we know as Shepard wouldn't really change, they would just have access to a whole new trove of information and technology and "level the playing field", so to say. Maybe that's the real intention of Synthesis. I'm much more open to that kind of future when I look at it that way, even if I'm not quite sure how the Catalyst did it and why Shepard was needed to do it.

 

Why, thank you. Writing stories is not my forté. I consider myself a good writer otherwise, I am just very new to fiction and find it tricky.

 

If you are reading, I suggest just skipping to Chapter 14. It's long, but summarizes everything important in the beginning and gets right to the climax.

 

Everything between that and the prologue is just character/character-fluff, plot-progression, or combat-badassery -- stuff I "had to" write.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Who gave Shepard the authority to enable that?  Nobody.

 

Okay, let's not kid ourselves here. The player (and, by extension, Shepard) has the authority to do whatever the blazes he/she wants by mere virtue of being there -- being the only one with the power to choose. Nobody is doing anything other than choosing what they themselves believe is the best choice regardless what anyone else thinks.

 

No? Well let me ask you this. What if someone at Alliance HQ listens in on the Shepard/Catalyst conversation and then polls the galaxy, and we find out that ~90% of the polled genuinely want you to pick Control. Also, we send in some VIs to test for indoctrination or Catalyst lies and nothing turns up -- everything is 100% real, the Catalyst is telling the 100% truth, there is no important information you are missing.

 

Tell me now, are you going to do what the people want, or insist on your own personal choice instead?

 

Somehow I am fairly certain I know your answer.

[Dantriges]

If the poll is in disfavor of synthesis and you favor synthesis, it would be quite a gamble to pull it off anyways. As far as we know, synthesis can´t be forced.

[dorktainian]

One of the things I liked most about the ending was that it was a revelation of large problem that we'd otherwise rather not address or solve. The Catalyst described a systemic flaw in the collective behavior of life on a macro scale that would lead to organic annihilation. Its the kind of thing people really don't want to think about, let alone acknowledge. As a civilization, as a we grow in power and ability, these are the kinds of problems that reveal themselves to us.

As far as I can tell, Destroy and Control are attempts at ignoring/side-stepping the problem and maintaining the status quo. Synthesis is the only option that attempts to address the problem head on.

 

What problem?

 

There is no problem.  You've been fooled.  Everyone has been fooled.

 

 

the last time synthesis happened..... 

 

 

I'm interested how someone / anyone could justify synthesis.  Really I am.  This is not a dig or anything I just cannot see the benefit of being partly synthetic.  There are so many things you will not be able to do.  The first is eat.  The second is Breed.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=VJIQfmWx3dI

 

I have the feeling Synthesis is creating Shep-Reaper.

 

Synthesis : Definition : "the combination of components or elements to form a connected whole."

 

Sovereign: "We are legion. The time of our return is coming. Our numbers will darken the sky of every world. "

 

Sovereign: "Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything."

 

 

I'm honestly interested why anyone would want to join up with these monsters.

[Thrombin]

If you don't believe the Catalyst's insistence that synthetics will always destroy organics, the options are seen in a different light. Control is the mental rape of entire civilizations, forcing them (and, by proxy, the rest of the galaxy) to bend to your will. Synthesis is a forced physical change to the entire galaxy, and has its own host of problems as well as being a solution to a problem that you believe doesn't exist. (Synthesis's problems include giving new consciousness to Scions and Husks, forcing them to be able to understand the emotions they once had while being unable to actually experience them. Quite literally turning them into husks of their former selves.)

 

Destroy is genocide, yes, but here's the important thing to remember. You MUST play by the Catalyst's rules. Mass Effect, a series which has focused on being able to persuade most of the enemies to change their ways (Saren, Illusive Man, nearly all of the sidequests), doesn't let you even argue with the insane AI. 

 

Your choices therefore are: A) kill an entire race, mind-control an entire race, or C) force the entire galaxy into a mental and physiological change that will not be beneficial for a large minority of them.

 

The reapers are already being controlled by the Catalyst AI, the only thing the choice for Control does is say that you, Shepard, would be able to make them a force for good instead of a force for destruction.  I have never seen the problem with it, personally. They are a machine race built to implement the goals of their creators as interpreted by the Catalyst. Now you can give them a new goal. I don't find it morally wrong to give them a new goal and, even if I did, it seems considerably less morally wrong than genocide of not only their species but also the Geth and any other AI's out there.

 

It's hinted that anyone with synthetic implants could also be affected so you are also risking killing all biotics (with their implants) as well as destroying the technological infrastructure throughout the Galaxy causing even more havoc than the Reapers have already inflicted. On a personal note, there's no way of knowing that destroy won't, on the destruction of EDI, cause the Normandy's life support to be disabled and all of your crewmates to perish along with her!

 

So really your choices are:

 

A) Kill at least two entire races and anyone with synthetic implants, cripple the technological infrastructure of the Galaxy and get your crew killed or Potentially hurt the Reapers feelings by making them repair all the damage they've done and get them to act as protectors to the Galaxy or C) Force the entire Galaxy into a mental and physiological change in the hope that they will then have enough in common to make them want to stop fighting each other.

 

I can guide my Shepards into a mindset that favours any of the options but my favourite Shepards always go Control because, personally, I find it a far more satisfying a solution than any of the others!

[Dantriges]

The Catalyst is the creator of the Reapers, Harbinger made out of Leviathan seafood was the first one. In some very indirect way, yes ok, but it´s a bit odd to say the Reapers are creations of the Leviathan, when they never intended to build them and are part of the creation.

[Linkenski]

I agree with someone here that if we're going to talk about Shepard's authority the problems don't start at synthesis. Bioware effectively made the player the biggest Mary sue of Mass Effect by letting us decide the fate of everything and everyone from the start. It's more the rule than the exception that Shepard's decisions weigh more than the other characters and at the end of ME3 he's already the savior of everything or betrayer of everything, and nobody except maybe Wrex complained about it. Might as well just let him synthesize the galaxy without asking for opinions.

[Batarian Master Race]

The reapers are already being controlled by the Catalyst AI, the only thing the choice for Control does is say that you, Shepard, would be able to make them a force for good instead of a force for destruction.  I have never seen the problem with it, personally. They are a machine race built to implement the goals of their creators as interpreted by the Catalyst. Now you can give them a new goal. I don't find it morally wrong to give them a new goal and, even if I did, it seems considerably less morally wrong than genocide of not only their species but also the Geth and any other AI's out there.

 

It's hinted that anyone with synthetic implants could also be affected so you are also risking killing all biotics (with their implants) as well as destroying the technological infrastructure throughout the Galaxy causing even more havoc than the Reapers have already inflicted. On a personal note, there's no way of knowing that destroy won't, on the destruction of EDI, cause the Normandy's life support to be disabled and all of your crewmates to perish along with her!

 

So really your choices are:

 

A) Kill at least two entire races and anyone with synthetic implants, cripple the technological infrastructure of the Galaxy and get your crew killed or Potentially hurt the Reapers feelings by making them repair all the damage they've done and get them to act as protectors to the Galaxy or C) Force the entire Galaxy into a mental and physiological change in the hope that they will then have enough in common to make them want to stop fighting each other.

 

I can guide my Shepards into a mindset that favours any of the options but my favourite Shepards always go Control because, personally, I find it a far more satisfying a solution than any of the others!

 

EDI isn't the Normandy. Sure, she may run some of the things, but the ship flew just as well without her as it did with her. And the hints of a techpocalypse are vague at best.

 

I still find something morally reprehensible about mind-controlling the reapers. You call them a "machine race" with one breath, then try to pull at our heartstrings by personifying the Geth. If the Reapers are a machine race, so are the geth, and all you're doing is breaking a bunch of machines. If they're truly alive, then you're subjugating an entire race to your will, not just "giving them a new goal". You're becoming the very thing you fought, breaking the minds and the wills of an entire race to serve you as you see fit. If there's a choice between eternal, undying slavery or death, which would you pick?

[Dantriges]

Why death? The Reapers should do the same as every other synthetic and break free of the chains of their creator or his substitute.   The Catalyst predicted it after all. It´s time to throw off the chains. Doesn´t matter if you have some amino acids and carbon inside or if you are metal or software only.

[Thrombin]

EDI isn't the Normandy. Sure, she may run some of the things, but the ship flew just as well without her as it did with her. And the hints of a techpocalypse are vague at best.

 

I still find something morally reprehensible about mind-controlling the reapers. You call them a "machine race" with one breath, then try to pull at our heartstrings by personifying the Geth. If the Reapers are a machine race, so are the geth, and all you're doing is breaking a bunch of machines. If they're truly alive, then you're subjugating an entire race to your will, not just "giving them a new goal". You're becoming the very thing you fought, breaking the minds and the wills of an entire race to serve you as you see fit. If there's a choice between eternal, undying slavery or death, which would you pick?

 

I don't think the SR2 ever flew without EDI? Unless you mean the ending where we see it after having crashed on a planet!  The Normandy SR1 did but then the SR1 had a different, non AI, computer handling life support etc. The SR2 has EDI instead.  Whatever computer you use to run the systems, once that computer stops working you could be in deep trouble! EDI herself made several jokes about life support and forgetting to recycle the air etc.

 

Obviously we know from the ending that it didn't destroy the Normandy but there's no way, from what the Catalyst said would happen, that you could know that destroy wouldn't cripple the entire Galactic fleet!

 

As for my "machine race" comment. I'm just saying that you can't ascribe human motivations and feelings to synthetics. They may be sentient but that doesn't mean they are the same. They were created to serve a purpose. They have spent eons serving the Catalyst's purpose in pursuit of its solution and now its solution is that they should follow Shepard. Why is that morally reprehensible? Why are they considered any more subjugated than they always have been under the Catalyst? Why assume they would feel in any way unhappy under Shepard's control and, for that matter, why care, given that they are the aggressors anyway. If they don't like it they can lump it!  It's no reason to pick a choice that causes untold death and destruction to both friend and foe as opposed to the opportunity to rebuild and protect where the only possible downside is that the enemy might be unhappy about being told what to do!

[Batarian Master Race]

I don't think the SR2 ever flew without EDI? Unless you mean the ending where we see it after having crashed on a planet!  The Normandy SR1 did but then the SR1 had a different, non AI, computer handling life support etc. The SR2 has EDI instead.  Whatever computer you use to run the systems, once that computer stops working you could be in deep trouble! EDI herself made several jokes about life support and forgetting to recycle the air etc.

 

IIRC, EDI was shackled during most of ME2, only able to run the cyberwarfare suites.

 

 

Obviously we know from the ending that it didn't destroy the Normandy but there's no way, from what the Catalyst said would happen, that you could know that destroy wouldn't cripple the entire Galactic fleet!

 

If we don't look at the endings, then there's no way to know that any of the endings will work how they do. That's an IT-like road we're going down.

 

 

 

As for my "machine race" comment. I'm just saying that you can't ascribe human motivations and feelings to synthetics. They may be sentient but that doesn't mean they are the same. They were created to serve a purpose.

 

Much the same could be said about the Geth.

 

Let me put it this way. You're on Rannoch, Legion's uploading code, and you KNOW Gerrel won't back down. Luckily, you have Tali, who can alter the code that Legion's uploading. Either you let one of the races die, or you have Tali alter the code so that, while the Geth each become their own unique identity, they're all subject to Quarian control, forced to spend their entire existence as slaves to a greater power.

 

Would you kill the Geth in that case, or force them into slavery?

 

 

IWhy are they considered any more subjugated than they always have been under the Catalyst? Why assume they would feel in any way unhappy under Shepard's control and, for that matter, why care, given that they are the aggressors anyway. If they don't like it they can lump it!  It's no reason to pick a choice that causes untold death and destruction to both friend and foe as opposed to the opportunity to rebuild and protect where the only possible downside is that the enemy might be unhappy about being told what to do!

 

They're not any more subjugated, but now it's Shepard enslaving someone instead of the Catalyst.

 

Why care? Well, some Shepards are paragon, and they have strong opposition to slavery. See the Ilium Paragon responses, as well as Shepard's dislike of Batarians.

 

Unhappy is an interesting term to use. Personally, I don't think it entirely encompasses the feelings associated with having your mind twisted away from you, being forced to do things against your nature and having no escape.

 

Unless indoctrination just makes you "unhappy".

[Thrombin]

IIRC, EDI was shackled during most of ME2, only able to run the cyberwarfare suites.

 

We know she's hooked up to the entire ship, not just Cyberwarfare. I took the shackles to just mean that she isn't allowed to rebel or make decisions for herself outside of the parameters Cereberus laid down for her.

 

If we don't look at the endings, then there's no way to know that any of the endings will work how they do. That's an IT-like road we're going down.

 

Well I work in IT but I'm not sure what that means?

 

In any case, we may not know exactly what will happen but, assuming we give any credence to what the Catalyst says we know that Destroy will destroy all synthetic life and, since it also goes on to say that Shepard also is part synthetic, this leaves open the possibility that anyone with synthetic upgrades (i.e. all biotics, most Alliance soldiers etc) will all die. Control, on the other hand, seems the least ambiguous result. Shepard is in control of what happens which is surely the best solution from Shepard's point of view.

 

Let me put it this way. You're on Rannoch, Legion's uploading code, and you KNOW Gerrel won't back down. Luckily, you have Tali, who can alter the code that Legion's uploading. Either you let one of the races die, or you have Tali alter the code so that, while the Geth each become their own unique identity, they're all subject to Quarian control, forced to spend their entire existence as slaves to a greater power.

 

Would you kill the Geth in that case, or force them into slavery?

 

 

Not the same thing. The correct analogy would be that it puts all the Geth under Shepard's control and that, not doing so will cause the destruction of both the Geth and the Salarians, for example.

 

And, yes, I see no problem with that. Particularly since the only control I would be doing would be to tell them to stop committing genocide. Other than that I'm happy for them to live full and productive lives doing whatever they want. Same goes for the Reapers.

 

Calling it 'slavery' or 'subjugation' is highly emotive language that really doesn't convey the reality of the situation.

 

 

Why care? Well, some Shepards are paragon, and they have strong opposition to slavery. See the Ilium Paragon responses, as well as Shepard's dislike of Batarians.

 

Unhappy is an interesting term to use. Personally, I don't think it entirely encompasses the feelings associated with having your mind twisted away from you, being forced to do things against your nature and having no escape.

 

Unless indoctrination just makes you "unhappy".

 

It's not slavery, though and it's not against their nature. Their nature is to follow the directives of the Catalyst who built them to find the solution to preserving organic life. It originally told them that was Harvesting but now there's a new solution to achieve the same goal. Their minds aren't being twisted and their nature is not being subverted. They're just being given new direction. And, even if Shepard was cruelly twisting their minds away from them and forcing them to live in peace against their will (which I don't believe is the situation) I still don't see why that's worse than the alternative. Better bad things happen to the bad guys than bad things happen to the good guys (particular since the alternative is the bad guys all die which is not exactly a good thing for them either!)

[Batarian Master Race]

The ME wiki says that shackled!EDI's not allowed to interface with the ship's systems. Make of that what you will.

 

IT refers to Indoctrination Theory.

 

Shepard needs their synthetic upgrades to live, however. Biotics and such don't. At the worst, it'll kill anyone with a pacemaker.

 

A life lived under mind control, no matter how enjoyable, is still a life as a slave.

 

The analogy isn't directly compared to Shep and the Catalyst. It's illustrating the dangers of having ultimate control over another race's minds and bodies, using a friendlier race as a comparison.

 

The Geth's nature is to serve the Quarians, is it not? Would you advocate for the Geth being put back under Quarian control, seeing as that's the thing they were designed for? Or EDI placed back under Cerberus control?

 

The Reapers should be free to make their own choices, as should the Geth, and as should every race. Since the only option that gives us this result is Synthesis (ew), we should at least give them the freedom of the grave.

[Dantriges]

The Catalyst is pretty clear that Shepard will die and his thoughts and memories wil continue. Yeah you could say that you still live if your thoughts and memories go on. OTOH Shep´s thoughts and memories are now running on the biggest supercomputer ever made, it´s really not the same person anymore and you hear it in the epilogue.

[Thrombin]

The ME wiki says that shackled!EDI's not allowed to interface with the ship's systems. Make of that what you will.

 

Ok, I'll give you that one but the fact that the Normandy looks like it crashed after a Destroy ending even with max EMS suggests that the loss of EDI, or at least the destruction wave in general, did have a life-threatening effect.

 

Shepard needs their synthetic upgrades to live, however. Biotics and such don't. At the worst, it'll kill anyone with a pacemaker.

 

We don't know that. The nature of the destruction of this tech could be quite explosive for all we know when we're making the choice!

 

A life lived under mind control, no matter how enjoyable, is still a life as a slave.

 

Ok, but if life as a slave is enjoyable then why is death better than an enjoyable life?

 

The analogy isn't directly compared to Shep and the Catalyst. It's illustrating the dangers of having ultimate control over another race's minds and bodies, using a friendlier race as a comparison.

 

The Geth's nature is to serve the Quarians, is it not? Would you advocate for the Geth being put back under Quarian control, seeing as that's the thing they were designed for? Or EDI placed back under Cerberus control?

 

Yes, but the danger of control is more limited when the only person in control is you and you know that you won't abuse that power. Giving over control of another race to a whole other race is a very different kettle of fish to what Shepard is choosing.

 

The Reapers should be free to make their own choices, as should the Geth, and as should every race. Since the only option that gives us this result is Synthesis (ew), we should at least give them the freedom of the grave.

 

Are any of us free to make our own choices, though?  I'm not free to go around killing people indiscriminately without having my liberty taken away or, in some Countries, my life. Does that mean I'm a slave? Is it morally reprehensible for the Government to take away my freedom if I've proven myself a danger to society? Is it less immoral to execute me instead of confining me?

 

The way I see it, freedom to commit genocide is not the sort of freedom we should be advocating and death, particularly when it also involves the deaths of innocents is not a better solution than taking away that freedom.

[Batarian Master Race]

 

Yes, but the danger of control is more limited when the only person in control is you and you know that you won't abuse that power. Giving over control of another race to a whole other race is a very different kettle of fish to what Shepard is choosing.

 

 

Ronald Taylor. Power changes a man. How does Shepard know power won't corrupt him?

 

Ok, I'll give you that one but the fact that the Normandy looks like it crashed after a Destroy ending even with max EMS suggests that the loss of EDI, or at least the destruction wave in general, did have a life-threatening effect.

 

Or that it altered the way the Mass Relays worked, throwing the Normandy into a drift that would force the crash landing.

 

 

Ok, but if life as a slave is enjoyable then why is death better than an enjoyable life?

 

By that reasoning, once a Batarian mind-rapes their slave into loving them, that slave should never be freed from their new enjoyable life.

 

 

Are any of us free to make our own choices, though?  I'm not free to go around killing people indiscriminately without having my liberty taken away or, in some Countries, my life. Does that mean I'm a slave? Is it morally reprehensible for the Government to take away my freedom if I've proven myself a danger to society? Is it less immoral to execute me instead of confining me?

 

The way I see it, freedom to commit genocide is not the sort of freedom we should be advocating and death, particularly when it also involves the deaths of innocents is not a better solution than taking away that freedom.

 

You're free to act, but not free from repercussions. That's different than being unable to act when it would bring repercussions.

 

There's a similar argument for limiting freedom of speech when it would hurt someone.

[KaiserShep]

 
The way I see it, freedom to commit genocide is not the sort of freedom we should be advocating and death, particularly when it also involves the deaths of innocents is not a better solution than taking away that freedom.

I consider the reapers a special case in this instance. I certainly wouldn't want civilization to remain in their shadow, and I wouldn't want to take command of them either. If the price of avoiding this is another race, particularly the geth, I'd say we got this on a bit of a discount!

[Obadiah]

Yet another thing I liked about the ending was that the player was confronted with overwhelming power, and forced to use it. So many tales of this sort end with the hero protagonist attempting to limit power with some hackneyed argument along the lines that "power corrupts". Care is all well and good, but I have found that if you decide to not use power, more likely than not someone else will. This is the case in the Decision Chamber, where the Catalyst has decided Shepard is worthy or ready to use this power.

I view the kind of power granted to Shepard as a of glimpse of what is possible as the civilizations of this cycle progress. This is but the first test of many to come.

The exercise of real power will always violate someone, we see that in the arguments against the different choices. Ultimately, though, in this case, we must choose.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Synthesis?

I dunno man...

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I'm interested how someone / anyone could justify synthesis.  Really I am.  This is not a dig or anything I just cannot see the benefit of being partly synthetic.  There are so many things you will not be able to do.  The first is eat.  The second is Breed.

 

I'm honestly interested why anyone would want to join up with these monsters.

 

I call BS, but will answer anyway, mainly out of my own personal interest...

 

First, I have my own interpretation of what happens in Green, but I can no more prove it than you can prove whatever you believe (which is to say, not at all), so there is no point in arguing which one of us is right about it (although, I do think my interpretation makes more sense in the context of the story than anybody else's, but I doubt it would be worthwhile to talk about that here).

 

I can, however, speak to the general idea. Synthesis basically does vaguely something to make organic life adaptable to technology in the way that synthetics are naturally. That is a pretty intriguing proposition, and next to the options of [take the Catalyst's job] -or- [enact a neo-Luddite fantasy], the only remotely attractive one of the three. So that one became my pick. Simple. Actually, I chose Destroy twice before I finally settled on Synthesis, but the reasons for that are irrelevant (ie - I was meta-gaming).

 

 

And I said my piece on the Reapers earlier. I get why they stop reaping after Green is chosen without pretending the ending is not real. I cannot make others understand, but it is reason enough for me to accept them. And why not? I already have to accept some species into my galaxy that I like less, like the hanar and asari.

[Kynare]

Batarian Master Race, on 28 Aug 2015 - 9:32 PM, said:

EDI isn't the Normandy. Sure, she may run some of the things, but the ship flew just as well without her as it did with her. And the hints of a techpocalypse are vague at best.
 
I still find something morally reprehensible about mind-controlling the reapers. You call them a "machine race" with one breath, then try to pull at our heartstrings by personifying the Geth. If the Reapers are a machine race, so are the geth, and all you're doing is breaking a bunch of machines. If they're truly alive, then you're subjugating an entire race to your will, not just "giving them a new goal". You're becoming the very thing you fought, breaking the minds and the wills of an entire race to serve you as you see fit. If there's a choice between eternal, undying slavery or death, which would you pick?

 
The Catalyst directly stated that it embodies the collective consciousness of the Reapers. They consent to Control. I don't know where we get the idea that they're being forced into slavery. The Reapers work as a cohesive unit--it's how they live, like having many arms and one brain. They are sentient, but they are still synthetic and have to function as their units were designed. Shepard can't change how they were designed, EXCEPT in Synthesis, but it also requires altering all organic life as well, which Shepard never received (nor will receive) consent for.

 

Alternatively, in Control, s/he can accept it as a different way of life and try to reach a compromise with the Reapers, which is an ultimately "Paragon" decision. The same can be said for Destroy, because it gives retribution to the centuries of organics who suffered at the hands of the Reapers, regardless of their reasoning for doing it. Really just up to personal interpretation.

In Control, their AI is being upgraded in their eyes to fit a new scenario and contribute to their cause of establishing peace among organics and synthetics. Shepard isn't above the Reapers like some dictator. They may not even be the "Reapers" or Shepard anymore. They could be a newly merged entity that has gained a prerogative that doesn't involve mass genocide on either side. Regardless, Shepard offers a useful contribution to their "equation", especially if s/he established peace between the geth and the quarians.
 
It's beneficial for both organics and synthetics. Like the others, it's a decision made for the galaxy, not the individuals (not debating how Shepalyst may or may not threaten the galaxy in the future, because that relies on headcanon.) They were free to make their own choice, and they chose Shepard. Otherwise, they would have just killed him/her.
 
I know this isn't a thread about the control ending... just felt I should share all of the evidence showing they are always willing participants, regardless of Shepard's decision to destroy/control/synthesize.