94 replies to this topic

[AlanC9]

Sorry... he does in ME2 in the Arrival DLC.

If you played it.

[introverted_assassin]

Sorry... he does in ME2 in the Arrival DLC.

he does what?

[sortiv]

Hold it. That bit about fire had nothing to do with a rationale for the Reapers' activities. The Catalyst's telling Shepard that "war" isn't the way the Reapers think about their activities. That response would completely miss the point. No, they're not fire. They're Reapers, and they're doing what they were created to do.

 

The fire analogy is specious for a number of reasons.

 

Shepard is questioning the validity of the Catalyst's solution, as a whole, by insinuating what would be a generally held view that war is bad. The fire analogy is an attempt to side step that by claiming it is within Reaper nature to "harvest" civilizations (which in practice we witness as killing, mutilating, genetically turning corpses into mindless creatures of war, etc - and perhaps a little preserving of DNA, which I assume all happens off screen somewhere). Say we accept that this is true. Is that rationale a satisfactory justification for the plan of the Catalyst and the actions of the Reapers? 

 

That's what I'm refuting. That it is their nature, does not justify the behavior being allowed to continue. It's the nature of a virus to spread, and a virus is technically alive, but everyone agreed eliminating polio was a good idea. 

 

When you say Reapers are "doing what they were created to do" you're referring to the destruction of advance civilization across the galaxy. Fine enough that it's their nature to do that, and fine enough that the Catalyst asserts it's necessary, but when you put those two things together it still amounts to: "I'm the Catalyst, I made the Reapers to do this, and it's fine because that's just what they do." That - does - not - make - sense. 

 

 

Trick how, exactly? By telling him the truth?

 

Giving him/her the illusion of choice. Faced with sure destruction, the Catalyst offers two options which are conciliatory (essentially surrender without destruction (control), or truce (synthesis)) and highly steers towards those two, and then throws in the third option of destruction, which was assured anyway after Shepard overcame super indoctrination. Obviously he warns heavily against the destruction option. It changes the odds of destruction for the Catalyst and Reapers from 100 percent, to 1/3. It's a cold calculation, and not guaranteed, but the odds now play in the Catalyst's favor. Just my musing on it, but exactly the cold logic I'd expect from an artificial intelligence with its back against the wall. 

[Dantriges]

Well, if the Catalyst thinks it´s fine because it´s what they were made to do by him, fine for him. Nice blame shifting on your underlings for doing what you told them to and then rationalizing it. And I still side with our survival instinct, that´s what we want to do.

[Satele-Shan87]

That theory proved to be untrue, why are some of you constantly try to revive it ?

 

Bioware said it was untrue, their statement is what matters

[Esthlos]

That theory proved to be untrue, why are some of you constantly try to revive it ?

 

Bioware said it was untrue, their statement is what matters

It usually is a good practice to read at least the first post before commenting...

[dorktainian]

That theory proved to be untrue, why are some of you constantly try to revive it ?

 

Bioware said it was untrue, their statement is what matters

 

wrong.

 

Bioware never said IT was not true.  They never said that it was either.

[AzWarp]

he does what?

 

Show signs of indoctrination.

[fhs33721]

Destroy option is all you should be doing. Again. Can't say this enough. Shoot that cool-aid tube every single time.

Or we could just let players choose whatever of the three endings they deem fitting for their playthrough? No? Ok then.

 

Also IT is a thing, yes. As in: it's a thing completely made up by fans that were dissapointed by the actual endings. IT would also require subtle writing, which (as much as I love Bioware) Bioware just doesn't do. Like ever. Or at least not in their main storylines.

[corkyspetals]

Leviathans created the Catalyst.  The Catalyst created and controls the Reapers.  Where does indoctrination come from?  The Reapers?  The Catalyst?  Is a post-choice Shep indoctrinated?    Is post-choice Shep/catalyst (Shepalyst?  Catashep?) permanently indoctrinated ?  Is the narration of the post-Control consequence made by an indoctrinated Shepalyst? 

[congokong]

The fire analogy is specious for a number of reasons.

 

Shepard is questioning the validity of the Catalyst's solution, as a whole, by insinuating what would be a generally held view that war is bad. The fire analogy is an attempt to side step that by claiming it is within Reaper nature to "harvest" civilizations (which in practice we witness as killing, mutilating, genetically turning corpses into mindless creatures of war, etc - and perhaps a little preserving of DNA, which I assume all happens off screen somewhere). Say we accept that this is true. Is that rationale a satisfactory justification for the plan of the Catalyst and the actions of the Reapers? 

 

That's what I'm refuting. That it is their nature, does not justify the behavior being allowed to continue. It's the nature of a virus to spread, and a virus is technically alive, but everyone agreed eliminating polio was a good idea. 

 

When you say Reapers are "doing what they were created to do" you're referring to the destruction of advance civilization across the galaxy. Fine enough that it's their nature to do that, and fine enough that the Catalyst asserts it's necessary, but when you put those two things together it still amounts to: "I'm the Catalyst, I made the Reapers to do this, and it's fine because that's just what they do." That - does - not - make - sense. 

 

There have been many threads, including mine (http://forum.bioware...-reapers-right/) on the catalyst's logic. I'll just copy/paste my OP from that thread playing devil's advocate.

 

Most fans hate the Catalyst (maybe because of its form) but it actually brought an insight into the reapers' motivations besides the "you cannot comprehend" arrogance of Sovereign, Harbinger, and the reaper on Rannoch.

It's actually not that hard to comprehend. The debate is the ethics of this "ends justify the means" rationale for the harvests. The logic is that the catalyst has studied countless civilizations and the dangers of technological progression. Every single civilization inevitably ended with synthetics being created, surpassing organics, and eventually destroying them. Leviathan originally intervened to destroy these synthetics before they could destroy other organic societies but later created the catalyst as a mediator. The catalyst realized that Leviathan creating it proved that Leviathan was making the same errors the lesser species were. Therefore the reapers were made to destroy Leviathan and any advanced organics/synthetics before synthetics could dominate all life in the galaxy. While this gives organics free reign to live it also put them on a timer that was accelerated by the invention of mass relays (done to make harvesting easier as they'd technologically progress along a linear path as well as a means for the reapers to travel).

A theme throughout the series is the dangers of technology. The idea is that without Leviathan or the reapers eventually all organics will be enslaved or killed by synthetics. So are the reapers right?

[fraggle]

A theme throughout the series is the dangers of technology. The idea is that without Leviathan or the reapers eventually all organics will be enslaved or killed by synthetics. So are the reapers right?

 

Interesting post and I agree

As for how right are the Reapers. I'm not sure we can actually proof either how right or wrong they are, and maybe it's not necessary. People playing the game are free to make up their own mind if they believe the Catalyst. Personally I do, I do believe it has this knowledge, witnessing synthetics surpassing organics many times, because it's just the logical step. In order to become more effective to organics, synthetics must develop further and further and thus surpassing organics, just like the equation the Catalyst is working with shows.

My opinion is that we should take our fate into our own hands, thus I picked Destroy with my Shepards so far. Have I doomed organics? I don't know. For sure there will be new synthetics built, maybe they rebel and turn against organics, but at least this happens without anyone interfering and deciding the fate for an entire galaxy. I'm not opposed to the other endings however, I think each one can be justifiable. It just means the others are not to my taste, but I try to be open-minded about it and try to see different angles and what appeals to some people in order for them to pick them. Trying to play different Shepards as well.

 

Having just finished Retribution today I must say it was so fascinating to see the Reapers work, that they can be brutal and cold when something is in their way or when they feel threatened, yet they are constantly studying, researching, learning. The conversation between Kahlee and not-Grayson was interesting in terms of why organics might fail to understand what the Reapers want to achieve with the harvest. That what people were would transcend time and space and is forever stored, preserved as the Catalyst was tasked. Becoming immortal. When Kahlee said she doesn't want to be that way I think it kinda shows that neither side really understands the other. I guess the Reapers can't understand how you can not want to be immortal/ascend to something higher, while we can't understand why someone would want that. At least I myself am with Kahlee I wouldn't want to be harvested, and neither do the people in the game. When their time comes, it comes, it just ends. They die and that's it. Why does it need to go further? The geth on the other hand longed for what the Reapers achieved.

Like in this video:

Spoiler

I thought that was pretty cool to see that there is a fundamental difference between what each fraction strives for.

[congokong]

I'm not opposed to the other endings however, I think each one can be justifiable. It just means the others are not to my taste, but I try to be open-minded about it and try to see different angles and what appeals to some people in order for them to pick them. Trying to play different Shepards as well.

 

I'm not opposed to the other choices so much as I'm opposed to choosing them under the premise of trusting the catalyst: creator of the "do whatever it takes to achieve our goal (including deceit)" reapers. Players of course know there will be no scenario where they jump into the laser and merely get vaporized; followed by the catalyst childishly laughing while saying, "I can't believe you were so stupid! You actually trusted me and obliterated yourself! And here I thought I was done for! Let the harvest commence!" It takes a degree of meta-gaming I feel for any level-headed person to choose any option but destroy.

 

As for the rest of your post, it's true that reapers/organics can't truly understand each other. I'd say the same applies to synthetics/organics in general, which is partially why I always saw the geth/quarian peace (if achieved) to inevitably fail. The geth are also quickly surpassing organics, thanks in part to reaper code, just as the catalyst predicted. I feel the catalyst's synthetic doomsday scenario in the Mass Effect universe is inevitable. To me the big debate comes in if that justifies the atrocities of the reapers.

[Dantriges]

An dso the race that surpassed us, inevitably turns against us, because of?

[voteDC]

but you forgot one thing, and yes it is there in the codex....

 

Rapid Indoctination.  You know, the type they would use when all else fails?

The rapid indoctrination that leaves people an empty mindless husk? Unable to even feed themselves?

Nope, I didn't forget that. I just didn't mention it as that would kill any chance of indoctrination theory being true.

[AlanC9]

Shepard is questioning the validity of the Catalyst's solution, as a whole, by insinuating what would be a generally held view that war is bad. The fire analogy is an attempt to side step that by claiming it is within Reaper nature to "harvest" civilizations (which in practice we witness as killing, mutilating, genetically turning corpses into mindless creatures of war, etc - and perhaps a little preserving of DNA, which I assume all happens off screen somewhere). Say we accept that this is true. Is that rationale a satisfactory justification for the plan of the Catalyst and the actions of the Reapers?

That isn't quite how the fire analogy comes in.
 

Shepard: We're at war with the Reapers right now!
Catalyst: You may be in conflict wqith the Reapers, but they are not interested in war.
Shepard: I find that hard to believe.
Catalyst: When fire burns, is is at war? Is it in conflict? Or is it simply doing what it was designed to do? We are no different.

The Catalyst is saying that it doesn't think of what it's doing as conflict. This is, of course, simply true; a farmer isn't in conflict with wheat either, though I suppose the wheat would feel differently about the situation.

That argument you think Shepard's implying isn't any good anyway. "X is an example of A, all A is bad, therefore X is bad" doesn't get you anywhere with someone who knows exactly what X is and thinks it's good anyway. All it tells him is that you're putting X in the box marked A. Since he knows what X is, either he thinks X shouldn't go in the A box, or he thinks things that are good can still go into the A box. In this case, it's the former. The Catalyst is apparently defining "war" as something that requires a particular attitude towards the other side. Makes sense -- would we want a definition of "war" that would mean butchers are at war with cows? The only way to make this work is if the other guy has contradictory premises, but all you get then is that he throws out one of the premises; in this case "war is bad" would go.

(I said "I think" above because I don't think of my Shepards as trying to make that case; I headcanon as little stupidity for my Shepards as I possibly can, and that argument's an obvious nonstarter.)

 

That's what I'm refuting. That it is their nature, does not justify the behavior being allowed to continue. It's the nature of a virus to spread, and a virus is technically alive, but everyone agreed eliminating polio was a good idea.

This is just backwards. The nature doesn't justify the behavior -- the behavior is what caused the nature. The behavior was desired first, then the Reapers were created to match the desired behavior.
 
 

When you say Reapers are "doing what they were created to do" you're referring to the destruction of advance civilization across the galaxy. Fine enough that it's their nature to do that, and fine enough that the Catalyst asserts it's necessary, but when you put those two things together it still amounts to: "I'm the Catalyst, I made the Reapers to do this, and it's fine because that's just what they do." That - does - not - make - sense.

Again, he's not offering their nature as a justification of anything. That simply isn't how it comes up. Though there is a version of this that could be true; more like "I'm the Catalyst. I was made to think that doing this is good, so I'm doing it." The Reapers in themselves are irrelevant.
 

Giving him/her the illusion of choice. Faced with sure destruction, the Catalyst offers two options which are conciliatory (essentially surrender without destruction (control), or truce (synthesis)) and highly steers towards those two, and then throws in the third option of destruction, which was assured anyway after Shepard overcame super indoctrination. Obviously he warns heavily against the destruction option. It changes the odds of destruction for the Catalyst and Reapers from 100 percent, to 1/3. It's a cold calculation, and not guaranteed, but the odds now play in the Catalyst's favor. Just my musing on it, but exactly the cold logic I'd expect from an artificial intelligence with its back against the wall.

Why tell Shepard anything at all? Why not just sit there and wait for the Reapers to blow up the Crucible? For that matter, if he can add options to the Crucible, why can't he add a couple dozen more that he likes and lower the odds even more? Why can't he take Destroy away? And where does the illusion part come in?

[sortiv]

That isn't quite how the fire analogy comes in.
 
The Catalyst is saying that it doesn't think of what it's doing as conflict. This is, of course, simply true; a farmer isn't in conflict with wheat either, though I suppose the wheat would feel differently about the situation.

That argument you think Shepard's implying isn't any good anyway. "X is an example of A, all A is bad, therefore X is bad" doesn't get you anywhere with someone who knows exactly what X is and thinks it's good anyway. All it tells him is that you're putting X in the box marked A. Since he knows what X is, either he thinks X shouldn't go in the A box, or he thinks things that are good can still go into the A box. In this case, it's the former. The Catalyst is apparently defining "war" as something that requires a particular attitude towards the other side. Makes sense -- would we want a definition of "war" that would mean butchers are at war with cows? The only way to make this work is if the other guy has contradictory premises, but all you get then is that he throws out one of the premises; in this case "war is bad" would go.

(I said "I think" above because I don't think of my Shepards as trying to make that case; I headcanon as little stupidity for my Shepards as I possibly can, and that argument's an obvious nonstarter.)

 
This is just backwards. The nature doesn't justify the behavior -- the behavior is what caused the nature. The behavior was desired first, then the Reapers were created to match the desired behavior.
 
 

Again, he's not offering their nature as a justification of anything. That simply isn't how it comes up. Though there is a version of this that could be true; more like "I'm the Catalyst. I was made to think that doing this is good, so I'm doing it." The Reapers in themselves are irrelevant.
 
Why tell Shepard anything at all? Why not just sit there and wait for the Reapers to blow up the Crucible? For that matter, if he can add options to the Crucible, why can't he add a couple dozen more that he likes and lower the odds even more? Why can't he take Destroy away? And where does the illusion part come in?

 

I'll try and respond to this in more detail later. But for now, I have a feeling I can take a short cut. 

 

Do you, personally, think the actions of the Catalyst are justified? 

[AlanC9]

I'm not opposed to the other choices so much as I'm opposed to choosing them under the premise of trusting the catalyst: creator of the "do whatever it takes to achieve our goal (including deceit)" reapers. Players of course know there will be no scenario where they jump into the laser and merely get vaporized; followed by the catalyst childishly laughing while saying, "I can't believe you were so stupid! You actually trusted me and obliterated yourself! And here I thought I was done for! Let the harvest commence!" It takes a degree of meta-gaming I feel for any level-headed person to choose any option but destroy.
 

Actually, Destroy makes even less sense than the others. You have to break equipment to make it work. How do you know that you aren't sabotaging the Crucible?

[AzWarp]

Also IT is a thing, yes. As in: it's a thing completely made up by fans that were dissapointed by the actual endings. IT would also require subtle writing, which (as much as I love Bioware) Bioware just doesn't do. Like ever. Or at least not in their main storylines.

 

Disagree so completely!

IT is a thing that real fans actually came up with because they needed to figure out the endings and the meanings. Subtle variation here. 

 

You don't give BW enough credit with their writing... subtlety is everywhere in the entire ME trilogy.

[AlanC9]

My opinion is that we should take our fate into our own hands, thus I picked Destroy with my Shepards so far. Have I doomed organics? I don't know. For sure there will be new synthetics built, maybe they rebel and turn against organics, but at least this happens without anyone interfering and deciding the fate for an entire galaxy.

Well, we know that synthetics didn't successfully rebel against organics for quite a long time, since it hadn't happened by the Stargazer's time. I'd say the galaxy's pretty safe.

(Imagine a version of that scene with a couple of synthetics talking about how noble and selfless Shepard was, since he cleared the way for synthetics to take their rightful place as masters of the universe.)

[AlanC9]

I'll try and respond to this in more detail later. But for now, I have a feeling I can take a short cut.

Do you, personally, think the actions of the Catalyst are justified?

No. More specifically, I don't see any reasons to value the interests of organic life over synthetic life

I also don't believe that the Catalyst is correct about the future course of events, though that's a different type of non-justification. The position fails on both moral and intellectual grounds.

Next question.

[Scourge king]

anyone ever notice shepard starts bleeding after he shoots anderson?

and since when did reapers build a device (destruction tube thingy magig) that would allow organics to destroy them all or even control them all?

side note i destructioned the **** out of the reapers. (why the hell should i trust an ai that says it is the combined intelligence of the reapers)

[voteDC]

anyone ever notice shepard starts bleeding after he shoots anderson?

Pretty much everyone has. It's one of the points of 'proof' that people who believe in Indoctrination theory cite, that Shepard starts bleeding from the same place they shot Anderson.

I guess the massive injuries that Shepard has suffered and the physical stress of fighting Illusive Man's control could in no way have torn open a wound.
 

 

(why the hell should i trust an ai that says it is the combined intelligence of the reapers)

One of my big issues with the ending as well.

The Catalyst has just told me that it created and controls the Reapers, and then I'm supposed to trust it that electrocution, disintegration, and explosion are somehow going to stop them?

Right up to the end I was expecting something different than having to trust the big bad on how to stop it.

[Dantriges]

and since when did reapers build a device (destruction tube thingy magig) that would allow organics to destroy them all or even control them all?

side note i destructioned the **** out of the reapers. (why the hell should i trust an ai that says it is the combined intelligence of the reapers)

 

Well, the question is, why should the catalyst tell the truth about how to destroy it? Without hindsight you don´t know, if Shep just sabotaged the Crucible device by shooting the tube and disrupted dunno the optical rewrite/delete laser in the middle, which was in the process of killing the Catalyst while starkid was talking to you.

 

And the only reason you "trust" the catalyst s because the only other options are to ALT-Tab and close the game or let the Reapers eat you.

[dorktainian]

The rapid indoctrination that leaves people an empty mindless husk? Unable to even feed themselves?

Nope, I didn't forget that. I just didn't mention it as that would kill any chance of indoctrination theory being true.

 

so you took no notice of the fact shepard was basically unable to do anything during the confrontation with TIM and Anderson?  The only thing he managed to do was shoot TIM even though he had no control of his major motor functions at all. You took no notice of the oily shadows everywhere on screen?  The reaper noises in the background.  The indoctrination nibbling at his mind all the time judging by his reactions - it deffo looked as if something was messing with his mind.

 

It's just so obvious.  

 

Replay the section in surround and really listen to the individual channels.  It's a dead giveaway.