657 réponses à ce sujet

[UpUpAway]

If someone commits and act of terrorism, are we supposed to just let that person go because there's no evidence that they won't do it again?

 

As I said, as far as Shepard was concerned, he wasn't just letting him go.  He fully planned to catch him and was absolutely confident that either he or the Alliance could and would catch him before he could hurt anyone else.  Had this not been expressed in the game, your argument that it was a good "moral dilemma" might hold some water... but it was expressed in the game... which makes it about on par with any other poorly written moral dilemma in the game. 

 

I'm not going to get into arguing the ethics of the actual decision here... just the mechanics of how moral dilemmas are presented in the game.  This one is no better than the rest.

[Master Warder Z_]

As I said, as far as Shepard was concerned, he wasn't just letting him go.  He fully planned to catch him and was absolutely confident that either he or the Alliance couldd and would catch him before he could hurt anyone else.

 

That really didn't work out though.

[MrFob]

also boyo I don't care about pixels in general, I told most people this my outlook is very Freiza esq.


Sums up my views on most fictional non human life.

So sure, keep assigning a term like 'racist' to pixels.

The last point doesn't really work IMO. This thread is about moral dilemmas in Mass Effect. If we constitute that fictional characters, groups or races cannot be assigned any real world value to than any moral in any fiction is pointless, anything that happens to anyone in fiction is inconsequential and no message or meaning behind imagination is invalid. I am not sure why anyone who really holds such an attitude would consume fiction in any form in the first place.

[Master Warder Z_]

 I am not sure why anyone who really holds such an attitude would consume fiction in any form in the first place.

 

Entertainment? Just because I don't care about allegoric message or what have you, or don't assign the people, concepts or countries realistic levels of attention, doesn't mean I can't find them entertaining.

 

I mean look at my avatar the Principality of Zeon, a dictatorship of space colonies ruled by a iron handed autocrat, who are responsible in part for starting a war that literally kills half of humanity-4.8 billion inside a few weeks. My favorite fictional setting, my favorite fictional people, why? Because they are interesting, such a myriad of characters, belief and principle. All of it utterly pointless and irrelevant outside of its own world.

 

 

I am also willing to admit that their supreme commander is one hell of a orator.

[Riven326]

As I said, as far as Shepard was concerned, he wasn't just letting him go.  He fully planned to catch him and was absolutely confident that either he or the Alliance could and would catch him before he could hurt anyone else.  Had this not been expressed in the game, your argument that it was a good "moral dilemma" might hold some water... but it was expressed in the game... which makes it about on par with any other poorly written moral dilemma in the game. 

 

I'm not going to get into arguing the ethics of the actual decision here... just the mechanics of how moral dilemmas are presented in the game.  This one is no better than the rest.

Just because someone expresses confidence in catching a terrorist does not automatically mean that said terrorist loses the ability to evade capture or come up with new plans to harm others. You're downplaying the real dilemma that exists here.

[Revan Reborn]

Play it again.

The point was if I don't remember what was a mediocre DLC, the "moral dilemma" that was likely presented wasn't very compelling. I may play it again at some point, but I was just curious why you felt it was such a great example of a moral dilemma. Things that are typically forgettable, from my perspective, are generally not that interesting to begin with.

[Riven326]

The point was if I don't remember what was a mediocre DLC, the "moral dilemma" that was likely presented wasn't very compelling. I may play it again at some point, but I was just curious why you felt it was such a great example of a moral dilemma. Things that are typically forgettable, from my perspective, are generally not that interesting to begin with.

Well, I admire your honesty and candidness nonetheless. I would honestly use the same argument if I shared your perspective on this.

[AlanC9]

As I said, as far as Shepard was concerned, he wasn't just letting him go.  He fully planned to catch him and was absolutely confident that either he or the Alliance could and would catch him before he could hurt anyone else. 

I read that as empty bluster on Shepard's part.But that's mostly me not wanting my PC to believe stupid things. There's no basis for thinking that the Alliance can catch Balak before he can hurt anyone else.

[MrFob]

Entertainment? Just because I don't care about allegoric message or what have you, or don't assign the people, concepts or countries realistic levels of attention, doesn't mean I can't find them entertaining.

 

Oh that's fine but then, if you are not interested in this aspect, why are you posting in a thread about moral dilemmas? Why do you argue points of morality that you consider arbitrary?

[Master Warder Z_]

Oh that's fine but then, if you are not interested in this aspect, why are you posting in a thread about moral dilemmas? Why do you argue points of morality that you consider arbitrary?

 

Why does anyone post anything on the internet that is ultimately completely pointless?

 

That'd be my question to you.

[Riven326]

I read that as empty bluster on Shepard's part.But that's mostly me not wanting my PC to believe stupid things. There's no basis for thinking that the Alliance can catch Balak before he can hurt anyone else.

Especially given that Balak can just fly back to batarian space and then the Alliance support goes out the window. Beyond that, it's space, he could be anywhere.

[UpUpAway]

Just because someone expresses confidence in catching a terrorist does not automatically mean that said terrorist loses the ability to evade capture or come up with new plans to harm others. You're downplaying the real dilemma that exists here.

 

For there to be a dilemma, Shepard has to believe he's letting Balak go... and he clearly does not believe that at the time he steps aside.  Even after Balak springs his surprise on Shepard, Shepard indicates that Balak won't be able to hide from him or the Alliance.  In giving the player that "I'm not actually letting him go" option, they allow the player to side-step any dilemma (i.e. the player can just avoid the issue).  A well written moral dilemma that "works" would not give the player this option of side-stepping the issue.  I don't care which way you solve it... the option exists to solve for both at the same time and that negates the concept of that moral dilemma working in the game.  Also, your initial premise is that it's a moral dilemma that works... yet every post here subsquently has been trying to convince me that killing the hostages is the "right" decision.  Where's the dilemma even in your mind?

[Revan Reborn]

Well, I admire your honesty and candidness nonetheless. I would honestly use the same argument if I shared your perspective on this.

That's perfectly fine. For me, for something to truly be a powerful moral dilemma, it's likely going to be something that I would actually remember. I vaguely remember the "save the hostages" or "get the terrorists." I'll have to examine it more closely but the way it was presented didn't really come across as a moral dilemma, in my opinion. Part of the reasoning for this is because the Paragon/Renegade system really works against making credible moral dilemmas. It forces BioWare to have two extremes that aren't entirely believable and often can undermine how powerful these choices should actually be.

[MrFob]

Why does anyone post anything on the internet that is ultimately completely pointless?

 

That'd be my question to you.

 

Oh, I don't mind pointless posts (I have made more than enough myself).

 

It was my mistake then. The first part of the post that I quoted above looked so much like an actual argument that I didn't realize you were just trying to make a pointless post on a topic you are not actually interested in.

[Master Warder Z_]

Oh, I don't mind pointless posts (I have made more than enough myself).

 

It was my mistake then. The first part of the post that I quoted above looked so much like an actual argument that I didn't realize you were just trying to make a pointless post on a topic you are not actually interested in.

 

Oh no, it has my attention, that isn't to say I have a actual argument constructed here beyond bare bones, I don't value fictional life but other then that I'd say premise was actually on the money. Let's say I did, why would I care about the Quarians in that scenario? I mean even if I was Shepard, by this point I would have been subjected to some very sketchy crap because of them, thus making me wonder just why I should care about them reclaiming their world at all, beyond the fact it was hoisted upon me because Hackett thinks it would help.

 

Beyond that point? I was rebutting the notion that any of this has any sort of validity or point to it, Its a bunch of text avatar's grumbling about a video game series on a forum.

[Quarian Master Race]

Sums up my views on most fictional non human life.

So sure, keep assigning a term like 'racist' to pixels.

Of course it's not IRL racism, but for the sake of the thought experiment we are participating in there's no difference, ergo it's fantastic racism.

[Riven326]

For there to be a dilemma, Shepard has to believe he's letting Balak go... and he clearly does not believe that at the time he steps aside.  Even after Balak springs his surprise on Shepard, Shepard indicates that Balak won't be able to hide from him or the Alliance.  In giving the player that "I'm not actually letting him go" option, they allow the player to side-step any dilemma (i.e. the player can just avoid the issue).  A well written moral dilemma that "works" would not give the player this option of side-stepping the issue.  I don't care which way you solve it... the option exists to solve for both and that negates the concept of that moral dilemma working in the game.  Your initial premise is that it's a moral dilemma that works... yet every post here subsquently has been trying to convince me that killing the hostages is the "right" decision.  Where's the dilemma?

Shepard let's him go! It doesn't matter that he believes he can catch him later, that's just bravado on Shepard's part. You have tried to downplay my choice of stopping him then and there by acting as if it was always a fact that Balak would be caught or no longer a threat and pointing to ME3 as proof. However all it proves is that Balak ultimately did fail to get another plan off the ground before the reapers hit. But it is ultimately irrelevant in ME1 unless you're meta-gaming.

And it's funny that you failed to notice that ME3 shows that Shepard never did catch him. Instead he found Shepard.

[UpUpAway]

Especially given that Balak can just fly back to batarian space and then the Alliance support goes out the window. Beyond that, it's space, he could be anywhere.

 

That Shepard is too stupid to block off avenues of escape does not a dilemma make.  Let me word it this way... If you believed that you could catch Balak AND save the hostages, would you just sacrifice the hostages anyway?  And if you would... why on earth go into the building in the first place.  The threat of the asteroid hitting the colony has passed... all you have to do is wait Balak out or call in reinforcements or bomb the building from orbit.

[Riven326]

That Shepard is too stupid to block off avenues of escape does not a dilemma make.  Let me word it this way... If you believed that you could catch Balak AND save the hostages, would you just sacrifice the hostages anyway?

Of course not. But again, you point to ME3 as conclusive proof that Balak was no longer a threat and that Shepard was going to catch him and bring him to justice. Yet the example you're using as proof disproves both of those things. He approaches Shepard with a gun drawn and could have easily killed him, and Shepard never finds him in ME2 or ME3. Instead he finds Shepard.

[Quarian Master Race]

You suit rats are always so quick to shout racism, yet you want to commit genocide against the geth.

Try again. Genocide is a legal definition for grops of people that doesn't apply to toasters in either our universe or the ME one because they're not people. Deactivating geth is genocide in the same sense that VW's most recent recall to change their faulty emissions systems was (except the quarians didn't deliberately intend their machines to malfunction and break laws).

[Quarian Master Race]

Derp

[MrFob]

Oh no, it has my attention, that isn't to say I have a actual argument constructed here beyond bare bones, I don't value fictional life but other then that I'd say premise was actually on the money. Let's say I did, why would I care about the Quarians in that scenario? I mean even if I was Shepard, by this point I would have been subjected to some very sketchy crap because of them, thus making me wonder just why I should care about them reclaiming their world at all, beyond the fact it was hoisted upon me because Hackett thinks it would help.

See, now we are talking about something interesting. By hypothesizing about the fictional world, we are not discussing the fate of pixels, we are using it as a means to discuss our stance on moral issues.
As for the quarians themselves, you could see it from humanitarian (well, sentient-itarian in this case) perspective that the quarians that live today are not the ones who made or fought the geth. Since they have no viable option to build a home somewhere else and since they are suffering a fairly harsh existence in the fleet and since it is actually not a big problem for the geth if they get Rannoch back, you could argue that it is needlessly cruel to wrok against it. Of course, if you don't have the the option to make piece for one reason or another, than you will have to weigh the situation of the geth against those of the quarians. Both sides have pro and cons to them, the geth did at least as much harm to Shep directly as the quarians did indirectly by creating them so there is no personal bias (that's why they call it a moral dilemma). But at least now we are arguing the opint at hand again.
 

Beyond that point? I was rebutting the notion that any of this has any sort of validity or point to it, Its a bunch of text avatar's grumbling about a video game series on a forum.

And that's a matter of perspective. Sure, the intrinsic value of our decisions in the real world are not existent but there is value in the hypothetical discussion in itself. It tells us something about the character of the people we are talking to and maybe even about ourselves. Ultimately, while we are talking about fictional characters, we are still talking about real life values. That is the interesting part and that is what makes morally ambiguous decisions in a game like this interesting in the first place. It's what I like to discuss, I like to see different viewpoints on an issue, maybe find one that I haven't considered myself yet and learn something from it. If you see it from that perspective it's not pointless and consuming fiction in this way is not just a fun waste of time but an opportunity for reflection and discussion.

[Riven326]

Try again. Genocide is a legal definition that doesn't apply to toasters in either our universe or the ME one. Deactivating geth is genocide in the same sense that VW's most recent recall to change their faulty emissions systems was (except the quarians didn't deliberately intend their machines to malfunction and break laws).

I completely agree. I just don't think you should call foul when someone feels the same way about your own species. Your people created the geth and are ultimately responsible for the deaths of thousands of colonists and millions of your own people. A human mind might conclude that the galaxy would be a better place without the quarians and their frankenstein creations.

[Master Warder Z_]

Of course it's not IRL racism, but for the sake of the thought experiment we are participating in there's no difference, ergo it's fantastic racism.

For the sake of the thought experiment, your wrong. Ergo incorrect.

[Vortex13]

Of course not. But again, you point to ME3 as conclusive proof that Balak was no longer a threat and that Shepard was going to catch him and bring him to justice. Yet the example you're using as proof disproves both of those things. He approaches Shepard with a gun drawn and could have easily killed him, and Shepard never finds him in ME2 or ME3. Instead he finds Shepard.

There's also the fact that Balak DOES kill again if Shepard lets him go. Balak was the one behind the Alliance cruiser crashing, and the mix-up of medicines leading to the deaths of Alliance soldiers in ME 3.

Now sure, if the player did kill Balak in Bring Down the Sky, ME 3 still has 'Not' Balak commit those actions...