Mass Genocide? Since when is scrapping some mixers or washing machines or old computers considered genocide ... never had any morale dilemma for me, that decision...and I am not even kidding here, I really saw no downside in "killing" the Geth
"Killing non-organics to save organics" - that kind of logic I could actually follow...
If you understand your own moral positions, there is no such thing as a moral dilemma.
Some moral systems don't work that way. I can think of a few with several imperatives and no clear way to resolve conflicts between them. Of course, this means that they're bad systems, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And of course, a lot of people don't actually have anything like a system in the first place.
Even when you have a system, sometimes you may encounter a lose-lose scenario with no clear indication regarding the "true" moral choice.
Bioware usually goes for simple Red/Blue choice, but choices like in Vermire, don't allow you the easy way out.
(unless you headcanon some navy regulations regarding a situation like this)
Even when you have a system, sometimes you may encounter a lose-lose scenario with no clear indication regarding the "true" moral choice.
Bioware usually goes for simple Red/Blue choice, but choices like in Vermire, don't allow you the easy way out.
(unless you headcanon some navy regulations regarding a situation like this)
My femshep that wanted to get laid by Kaidan would beg to differ.
Mass Genocide? Since when is scrapping some mixers or washing machines or old computers considered genocide ... never had any morale dilemma for me, that decision...and I am not even kidding here, I really saw no downside in "killing" the Geth
"Killing non-organics to save organics" - that kind of logic I could actually follow...
Ugh, I was hoping that we wouldn't derail this into an ending thread. Just to answer iakus (due to direct quote):
I would say that to a lot of people they weren't morally ambiguous so much as three different
flavorscolors of evil
The moral ambiguity does not arise from the options themselves ((you are right, they all have ethical issues attached) but from the context, namely that there is only one other alternative (let the reapers win). But let's not talk about the endings themselves, Rather one could say that the question "what's the lesser (least) evil?" may be the quintessential foundation of moral ambiguity, no?
My femshep that wanted to get laid by Kaidan would beg to differ.
Yes, but this is not a *moral* choice, this is a selfish choice.
I've always felt that killing off the geth is unfortunate, but not remotely comparable to the genocide of an actual species (like, say, the quarians). If I had to pick between one of the two to save, I would pick the quarians every time.
Well yes, I would admit that my natural reaction would probably be similar, and indeed in ME3 I would have probably chosen the Quarians if I couldn't have made peace between the factions.
But assuming that you don't believe in souls / religion / spirituality, and you are trying to be fair and just about your decisions, can you simply dismiss the idea that benign synthetics may be "alive" at least to a certain definition of the word, and have the same "right" to exist just as much as you?
Can you call your choice morally correct unless you judged all sides of the question fairly?
I feel that this natural response to choose organics over synthetics has more to do with our natural survival and tribal instincts than any kind of morality system.
I suppose I could argue that it's not possible to know such an incoherent moral position.Some moral systems don't work that way. I can think of a few with several imperatives and no clear way to resolve conflicts between them. Of course, this means that they're bad systems, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And a lot of people don't actually have anything like a system in the first place. If all you've got is a grab-bag of positions, you can certainly find that they're in conflict.
Even when you have a system, sometimes you may encounter a lose-lose scenario with no clear indication regarding the "true" moral choice.
I've always felt that killing off the geth is unfortunate, but not remotely comparable to the genocide of an actual species (like, say, the quarians). If I had to pick between one of the two to save, I would pick the quarians every time.
I hated Bioware killing off the Geth with the Destroy option both because giving an entire faction varying dead/alive states makes sequels difficult, and because it felt tacked on just to make Synthesis more appealing. It was an example of the lead writers trying to nudge the players towards their favorite word baby. That the word baby in question was the most poorly conceived of three made it worse.
I completely agree. Every assumption needs to be justified.Well yes, I would admit that my natural reaction would probably be similar, and indeed in ME3 I would have probably chosen the Quarians if I couldn't have made peace between the factions.
But assuming that you don't believe in souls / religion / spirituality, and you are trying to be fair and just about your decisions, can you simply dismiss the idea that benign synthetics may be "alive" at least to a certain definition of the word, and have the same "right" to exist just as much as you?
Can you call your choice morally correct unless you judged all sides of the question fairly?
I feel that this natural response to choose organics over synthetics has more to do with our natural survival and tribal instincts than any kind of morality system.
I'm not a fan of forcing difficult choices with zero information on what the consequences may actually be. Then after making that hard choice 9 times out of 10 you've worried for nothing cause the result is always the same cause of limited resources-super annoying.
I never thought Synthesis looked appealing. It wasn't explained well enough to know what it entailed.I hated Bioware killing off the Geth with the Destroy option both because giving an entire faction varying dead/alive states makes sequels difficult, and because it felt tacked on just to make Synthesis more appealing. It was an example of the lead writers trying to nudge the players towards their favorite word baby. That the word baby in question was the most poorly conceived of three made it worse.
I've always felt that killing off the geth is unfortunate, but not remotely comparable to the genocide of an actual species (like, say, the quarians). If I had to pick between one of the two to save, I would pick the quarians every time.
Well the Geth are a species and killing them off is genocide. But I guess it depends where your morals stand in terms of being sentient.
As in my point of view, I would logically pick the Geth rather than the Quarians.
Too bad most "heavy" choices in the trilogy involve a species survival. As what Han said, it cripples the continuity of that species in the future; dead or alive.
I don't think the consequences are morally relevant. You make the best decision you can with the information available. As long as you've applied your moral rules correctly, you've done the right thing (according to your moral code).I'm not a fan of forcing difficult choices with zero information on what the consequences may actually be. Then after making that hard choice 9 times out of 10 you've worried for nothing cause the result is always the same cause of limited resources-super annoying.
Again, it's largely subjective due to the fact that forced sterilization (something Nazi Germany did to many of it's own people) would be perceived by some to be far more evil and a war, as a result, being morally justified. I'd like to hear BioWare's thoughts, but I'd be surprised if the genophage was ever intended to be a morally ambiguous choice. The consequences of it were quite severe and every game provided more and more evidence why it was so bad and why it should be undone. If the effects of it were so drastic and clear, I might see the validity in this argument more.
Yes, in first sight what they did to the Krogan was really bad... but Krogan continuing to expand and killing billons of innocents in the process, waging war against the galaxy for who knows how many years would also be pretty bad. That's why it's not such a black and white choice nor I believe it was intended to (what would be the point of not curing the genophage then? Renegade Shepard can be a jerk but not quite chaotic evil), I mean I was pro-cure myself but the nazi germany example is completely off. While ME3 kinda forgets of these ideas, I think Mordin puts his stance very well on ME2.
Well the Geth are a species and killing them off is genocide. But I guess it depends where your morals stand in terms of being sentient.
As in my point of view, I would logically pick the Geth rather than the Quarians.
I would too, but only because I would favour them as troops in a Reaper war over the squishy and easily-sick Quarians. Also, would conventional indoctrination work on them? I think not. With all the "heretics" destroyed or converted, the Geth represent copy-and-paste soldiers against the Reapers.
Mass Genocide? Since when is scrapping some mixers or washing machines or old computers considered genocide ... never had any morale dilemma for me, that decision...and I am not even kidding here, I really saw no downside in "killing" the Geth
A basis such as these are organics and these aren't requires justification to avoid being nothing more than baseless prejudice.
If you understand your own moral positions, there is no such thing as a moral dilemma.
Still, that's a bit like saying "If you already know all the problems on the test, you're guaranteed to get an A".
One of the (many) benefits of gaming is the ability to test our own moral scenarios through a less abstract thought experiment, at least to some extent. If somebody subscribes to a less than tenable moral system, the game might bring that out by placing them in a complicated position.
In short: the very point of thought experiments (and hypothetical gaming dilemmas) is to test our moral positions in some simulation.
Even though I felt the execution of the choices at the ending of ME3 were absolutely horrific, one thing I do believe it accomplished relatively well was handing the player a list of varying philosophical backgrounds, of which neither one being really "better" than the other.
I ultimately went with Destroy because screw starchild and screw the reapers, but the absolute wealth of discussion the choices caused as well as everybody's rationale for why they picked a certain ending had an interesting, and perhaps even positive effect. I think that kind of response (not because the endings were badly executed, but because it's hard to choose which one you want) is actually great and I believe that player discussion further drives the narrative of the game.
I certainly don't want another ME3 ending debacle, but I do like having more difficult choices that will be heavily dependent on the player's subjective reasoning and personal disposition. I appreciate games that make you think and contemplate different perspectives that you wouldn't have otherwise considered. It's nice to actually just play a game where you aren't mindlessly going through predictable choices and you have to actually truly think about what you are doing. Sometimes, you shouldn't have all the answers and the choice you make shouldn't be abundantly clear!
I hated Bioware killing off the Geth with the Destroy option both because giving an entire faction varying dead/alive states makes sequels difficult, and because it felt tacked on just to make Synthesis more appealing. It was an example of the lead writers trying to nudge the players towards their favorite word baby. That the word baby in question was the most poorly conceived of three made it worse.
I felt the same. Why would the Destroy beam kill the Geth? The Control beam only alters the Reapers. The Synthesis beam is precise and sophisticated enough to change every single entity in the galaxy at the molecular level instantly and without visible side-effects except a spot of mind control (ugh, just writing that makes me wanna puke). Yet somehow, the Destroy beam's targeting system isn't sophisticated enough to distinguish between Reaper and Geth? That's some arbitrary BS only included to give Destroy a downside if you don't think of the Geth as toasters.
Anyway, I'll echo what some people said here, the trilogy had too many choices that ended up as genocidal dilemnas. It makes writing sequels more difficult when the PC decides the fate of entire species. Even had ME3's ending been well received enough not to warrant the serie's soft reboot in Andromeda, I have a very hard time seeing us play in a post-ME3 Milky Way where the Rachni, Krogan, Quarians, Hanar, and Geth can either be potentially exterminated, or enourmously crippled or empowered by the player's choices. in ME3 alone.
I actually think Dragon Age is way better at this. Sure, it had some weaknesses like Leliana being alive no matter what in DA2 and DAI, but its "who is king now?" or "which faction did you support?" style choices are usually more interesting and are better translatable into future games than Mass Effect's galaxy shattering decisions that are way above Shepard's paygrade and cannot realistically pan out in sequels unless EA doubles their budget overnight.
It is certainly a pitfall of the save import system. But I'm not certain if the alternative, to have canon choices decided for you in future games, is the better option.
Incorrect. The krogans were victims all along. My rationale for this is because they would have never made a campaign to conquer the galaxy had the salarians not given them the technology of interstellar travel. It was the salarians, who were desperate to benefit off the krogans as well as have a solution to the rachni, that uplifted the krogans before they were ready. Mordin even admits this and entirely suggests that the salarians are entirely at fault and the genophage was the salarian solution for their initial mistake.
Again, however you try to justify it, sterilization, and by consequence, genocide of millions of unborn children is an incredibly evil act, no matter the irrational justification for such severe actions. I'm all for moral dilemmas, but the genophage, in my opinion, was a terrible example of such a dilemma. It was abundantly clear the genophage went too far and that it's justification did not outweigh the harm.
Except the Genophage never was a sterility plague in the first place. Also, I am wondering why no one ever seems to bring up the (possibly) millions of Turian children that died when the Krogan redirected asteroids at three garden worlds for absolutely no reason; seeing as how at that point the Hegemony wasn't even apart of the Council. Nor does anyone mention how the Krogan would literally kill and eat their victims during the Rebellions.
Blaming the Salarian uplift for the Krogan aggression is asinine (IMO). When a kid winds up shooting himself because of mishandled gun we can blame negligent parents. When a kid takes a gun and orchestrates a school shooting its the kid's fault. The Krogan knew exactly what they were doing when they started the Rebellions, they are the ones that struck first. If we are going to say that the Krogan are innocent of their actions because they weren't ready to be uplifted then we can still say that actions like the Genophage were necessary since those simple minded toads are such innocent children and don't know how to keep it in their pants or keep their room clean.
The WW2 era Germany comparison is completely off base as well since the people doing the "sterilizing" weren't their own government. A more accurate example would be Japan and the dropping of the atom bombs by the Allies. Seems to be the same argument, an unwarranted attack on a poor people, yet Japan was also responsible for the whole "Rape of Nanking" thing, oh and they were prepared to fight to the last man woman and child against the Allies should they attempt a beach landing. The bombing wasn't pretty, but it was the only way to force Japan to surrender and spare the lives on both sides of the conflict. Though this analogy is not perfect, since Japan has since became a strong ally of the people who used the atomic bomb on them and integrated with the worldwide society, while the Krogan have remained isolated and openly hostile towards the rest of the galaxy for near a thousand years.
The Genophage is, IMO, the more interesting of the moral dilemnas of Mass Effect because it doesn't rely on the tired "are robots people?" trope that taints the Geth vs Quarian arcs.
On the one hand, I understand why the Genophage came to be. The Krogans really were a bunch of warmongering ravagers that needed to be stopped, and military power alone wasn't enough. On the other hand, morally, there really is no way (IMO) to fully justify forcing a birthrate of less than 1% on a species. I cannot for the life of me imagine this as being the moral thing to do, it is simply way too ruthless. I can consider it a practical measure, but not a moral one.
One way to solve it without the Genophage, I think, is to regulate the Krogan heavily, and for that you need a strong leader that is nevertheless willing to cooperate with the other species. Luckily, Wrex is just that, and even more luckily, he'll stiill be alive for a long time.
Retour en haut