657 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

Yes, it was a belligerent narrative in favor of the Geth. The narrative in the game was very pro-Geth. 34% of people chose the Geth. 29% chose the Quarians. 37% made peace. Even the choices were worded: "Let the Geth Die" in the Renegade position; "Upload the Code" in the Paragon position; unless you had the Red/Blue "I win" choices. Don't those choices tell you the writer's agenda?

 

IMO they should have been right and left: 1) Support the Quarians; 2) Support the Geth.

I do agree with this sentiment in the sense that any "moral dilemmas" that might have been present in ME1-3 were largely overshadowed by a narrative BioWare clearly wanted fans to follow. Examples of the genophage, geth vs quarians, etc., are all poor representations of moral dilemmas because of how BioWare presented these subject matters with a clear bias favoring one option over the other.

 

Whenever one comes at a crossroads, there isn't supposed to be a "right" or "wrong" choice to make. To make matters worse, the paragon option allows Shepard to save both the geth and the quarians, so any dilemma that may have been present has now subsequently been erased and resolved. While this might make the player feel good, it also invalidates and renders many previous decisions worthless given that the ultimate outcome led to a circumstance where everybody "wins."

 

Everything shouldn't be so clear cut. Everything shouldn't be so easy. Sometimes you have to pick a side, even if you don't want to. There is no "right" or "wrong," just choices with consequences. To make these moral dilemmas truly credible, it would go a long way if BioWare weren't to color them in such a positive or negative light, clearly pushing the player to make certain decisions.

 

Leave some situations relatively ambiguous. Don't give us all of the facts. Force us to make a tough call at an inconvenient time and reflect that through the storytelling of how companions will react towards you, whether sympathetic or in disagreement. I'd like more intelligent and mature storytelling in MEA, rather than simplistic and over the top choices that dilute the experience and deprive us of the true feeling of grappling with these choices presented to us.

[Laughing_Man]

I didn't follow this thread from the beginning, but frankly I'm astonished to see such a level-headed and intelligent discussion going on here for so long.

(the fact that it has nothing to do with the topic of romance probably helps...)

 

Keep up the good work people.

[Laughing_Man]

I don't think this "natural response" you're speaking of tended to manifest itself anyway. The geth were statistically certainly more popular than their organic creators, most people liked EDI, and the vast majority of the fanbase sees the synthetics how the writers intended from the start as Real Boys.

 

Keep in mind, as others have mentioned here, the plot had a clear and obvious bias towards synthetics.

 

The fact that despite this a large percentage chose the Quarians, shows you that *something* is countering the writer's agenda on this topic.

 

Obviously many people simply liked better the Quarians, but then a high percentage also chose to play as the "default" soldier class,

despite being (arguably) the most boring class of ME, one reason for this is probably due the fact that Soldier was seeing as the canon "default" class due to trailers, cutscenes, etc.

 

My point is: Most people tend to conform to the agenda that is pushed on them, and therefore require something More in order to resist.

I think that this "something" is the natural response I mentioned.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Yes, it was a belligerent narrative in favor of the Geth. The narrative in the game was very pro-Geth. 34% of people chose the Geth. 29% chose the Quarians. 37% made peace. Even the choices were worded: "Let the Geth Die" in the Renegade position; "Upload the Code" in the Paragon position; unless you had the Red/Blue "I win" choices. Don't those choices tell you the writer's agenda?

 

IMO they should have been right and left: 1) Support the Quarians; 2) Support the Geth.

 

That wasn't what I meant. The topic is about how the Geth are represented in-universe and how we interpret that, not the writer's intents which, Mass Effect being Mass Effect, varied from game to game.

 

In any case, yes, they did whitewash the Geth overmuch in ME3. I think they wanted to balance the fact that we've been shooting at them for three games now, but overcompensated a bit. We should have had a missions with the Quarian side of the narrative, preferably delivered by a trustworthy source like Raan or some sort of Quarian historian.

[Ieldra]

Irrespective of that, I would gain a lot of respect for BioWare and their storytelling if they began treating us like intelligent consumers.

Are we that, really? Considering the ME3 decision statistics, most people make decisions based on how they make them feel, no matter if thinking things through based on the data given you in the story would get you the opposite decision. 

 

In order to treat people as intelligent players rather than presenting fairy-tale scenarios for immature children, they'd have to:

 

(1) ...make scenarios, not always but on occasion, with decisions where what feels right at the moment is disastrous and the best consequenences come from making a decision that feels uncomfortable but can be recognized as best nonetheless if you think things through.

(2) ...create sets of credible decisions rather than sets of two extreme ones for the sake of controversy.

(3) ...be unafraid of making unbalanced outcomes here and there. Instead of trying to avoid pissing anyone off by making only balanced outcomes, they should attempt to ****** off everyone here and there, with balance applied only to the decision set of the whole story.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I kinda wish they would make a few choices that bite the player in the ass later down the road.

 

The most shining recent Bioware example is Iron Bull in Trespasser. Don't rescue the Chargers, and he betrays you. No ifs, no buts. You told him to cut off ties with his friends and focus on his job as a Qunari spy, and that's exactly what he does. You just happen to be in the crosshair this time around. Nothing personal, bas. How do you like them apples now?

 

That moment made Trespasser for me. Few RPGs go so far as to have a companion turn on you so suddenly, yet have it work so well. It also turned the pragmatic, "I did what I had to do" message on its head; it is kinda less effective when you're on the receiving end of it.

[Ahriman]

Personally I don't really mind writers trying to push some of their ideas (unless they overdo it of course) in a way that some choices portrayed as good. But writers should restrain themselves from coming later with "I told you mate". If I choose specific goal over everyone's happiness I want that goal to be achieved.
W3 has good example for that in spirit under tree quest. You may choose what seems morally right at the moment, but face unpleasant consequences later, or be a dick there to solve other problem. The question is, does this problem deserve to be solved?

I kinda wish they would make a few choices that bite the player in the ass later down the road.

 

The most shining recent Bioware example is Iron Bull in Trespasser. Don't rescue the Chargers, and he betrays you. No ifs, no buts. You told him to cut off ties with his friends and focus on his job as a Qunari spy, and that's exactly what he does. You just happen to be in the crosshair this time around. Nothing personal, bas. How do you like them apples now?

 

That moment made Trespasser for me. Few RPGs go so far as to have a companion turn on you so suddenly, yet have it work so well. It also turned the pragmatic, "I did what I had to do" message on its head; it is kinda less effective when you're on the receiving end of it.

Yeah, that was fine except the part that IB should have knew better how turning your back on killing machine would work out.

[Onewomanarmy]

I kinda wish they would make a few choices that bite the player in the ass later down the road.

 

The most shining recent Bioware example is Iron Bull in Trespasser. Don't rescue the Chargers, and he betrays you. No ifs, no buts. You told him to cut off ties with his friends and focus on his job as a Qunari spy, and that's exactly what he does. You just happen to be in the crosshair this time around. Nothing personal, bas. How do you like them apples now?

 

That moment made Trespasser for me. Few RPGs go so far as to have a companion turn on you so suddenly, yet have it work so well. It also turned the pragmatic, "I did what I had to do" message on its head; it is kinda less effective when you're on the receiving end of it.

 

This exactly. I would love to see things like this, choices which made you think "sh!t, I knew I shouldn't have done or chosen that" suddenly later on in the game, after a lot of time has passed and you've maybe forgotten all about the choice or incident. 

 

Also, in origins you had Alistair come up to you upon entering camp with an unexpected cutscene and yelling at you for a certain choice you made in the beginning of the game. Stuff like that, something unexpected and with consequences, that's what I want to see again. 

[Revan Reborn]

Are we that, really? Considering the ME3 decision statistics, most people make decisions based on how they make them feel, no matter if thinking things through based on the data given you in the story would get you the opposite decision. 

 

In order to treat people as intelligent players rather than presenting fairy-tale scenarios for immature children, they'd have to:

 

(1) ...make scenarios, not always but on occasion, with decisions where what feels right at the moment is disastrous and the best consequenences come from making a decision that feels uncomfortable but can be recognized as best nonetheless if you think things through.

(2) ...create sets of credible decisions rather than sets of two extreme ones for the sake of controversy.

(3) ...be unafraid of making unbalanced outcomes here and there. Instead of trying to avoid pissing anyone off by making only balanced outcomes, they should attempt to ****** off everyone here and there, with balance applied only to the decision set of the whole story.

Well I can't speak for everyone, and certainly I wouldn't claim most people are "intelligent individuals." That being said, that shouldn't be a rational basis to dumb down the game anyway!

 

(1) I'm perfectly fine with that. Seems more reasonable and ideal of a situation.

(2) That's exactly what this thread is about. Dilemmas!

(3) Things should go wrong based on your decisions! Everything shouldn't just work out! I think you want this as much as I do!

 

This exactly. I would love to see things like this, choices which made you think "sh!t, I knew I shouldn't have done or chosen that" suddenly later on in the game, after a lot of time has passed and you've maybe forgotten all about the choice or incident. 

 

Also, in origins you had Alistair come up to you upon entering camp with an unexpected cutscene and yelling at you for a certain choice you made in the beginning of the game. Stuff like that, something unexpected and with consequences, that's what I want to see again. 

Making Alistair mad in Origins was fun though! I hated his guts! He was obnoxious, a clown, and a cry baby! I made him king though. Go figure?

[Onewomanarmy]

Making Alistair mad in Origins was fun though! I hated his guts! He was obnoxious, a clown, and a cry baby! I made him king though. Go figure?

Whaaaaaaaaat?..... I liked Alistair He was a crybaby and a virgin... yes... but I liked him lol xD

[Vortex13]

Just to put it into perspective, it was the council races and galaxy that brought the krogan into the conflict. It was the galaxy that determined the rachni were evil, and they still are cautious of the rachni. Ironically enough, the krogan were the only species who actually seemed to respect the rachni because of their strength. Every other species feared them like they feared the geth.

 

I'd have to do another playthrough. Looking at the Mass Effect wiki, it stated that only one infant in every thousand births would actually survive. That might put things into perspective for you how horrific it was. Don't you remember the krogan females that were committing suicide because they could not bear children? The genophage was not only physically destructive, but mentally and psychologically.

 

 

Even if the Krogan respected the Rachni, they were the ones to systematically kill them all and then clap each other on the back and treat that extermination like a feather in their respective caps. I'm not saying that the Rachni were undeserving of that outcome; indeed, an invasion of a highly aggressive species that refused to negotiate could only end badly. I just find it odd how the narrative can have the Krogan cheering each other on for a genocide they committed and have no qualms with it, but when the galactic society implements the Genophage to stop the Rebellions; an option chosen over killing them all just like the Rachni; suddenly its a great evil. The narrative is really indecisive here.

 

So genocide is bad, but if you happen to look like scary bugs it's okay to wipe you out. But it's completely fine for a highly aggressive species to (arguably) cause more damage to the galaxy than said space bugs in their unprovoked war, but if you implement a method of control and containment on this hyper aggressive species, then suddenly you are the worst being in the universe.

 

 

But let's say that BioWare's narrative is right and we should care deeply about the fate of this alien and how unjustly their children are being killed off. If that's true then I want equal priority given to the Rachni children, mentally handicapped children to boot, that Shepard and Co. murder as they go through Peak 15. Heck, our friendly neighborhood Krogan, Wrex is gleefully slaughtering the week old new born without a second thought, plus he argues for melting a defenseless mother with acid. Kinda double standards don't you think?

 

 

If I am not mistaken, the chances of survival to adulthood in pre-industrial level was stated to be something like 1 in 1000. I think Mordin says so in ME2. I don't have ME2 on this computer so I can't check, but even if the number is wrong, the point is the vast majority of Krogan children are stillborn or barely gets past the fetus stage, as a direct consequence of the Genophage. There is no possible way I can consider this moral by any means. If anyone attempted to impose this on a human population, I would accuse them of mass murder at best, genocide at worst.

 

And yes, even if the stated intent of the genophage isn't genocide but "population control", you can't just say (for instance) "we want 99% less Krogan, so we're gonna make 99% of them stillborn, problem solved". There are huge consequences to having a species hit by such a massively dramatic change. ME3 demonstrates this clearly. The Krogans are dying as a race. Slowly, because they live for very long periods and are ungoldly hard to kill, but still. And if the race dos die out, even if thousands of years after the Genophage, it would absolutely have been a genocide far worse than anything humanity has done.

 

And while, yes, the Krogan did make their bed to a degree, they were still pressed into action against the Rachni by the rest of the galaxy, who did not (apparently) have the foresight to devise containment methods. Because, what with their violent tendencies and explosive breeding, I think the Krogan do need containment. Morally, however, having a strong yet tractable leader that can keep them in check is a much better way than the Genophage.

 

 

1 in 1,000 sure looks like a lot, but you have to remember that Krogan females can have 1,000 offspring a year. So one kid a year, that's essentially the same as human women. And therein lies the problem with the Genophage arc, it tries to give human emotional and moral outlooks on a species that is clearly very alien to us.

 

The Krogan are an R-Selected species, their whole evolution is centered around popping out as many offspring as possible because a very large percentage of those offspring are never going to reach maturity. Really, the Krogan should place no value on an individual until they reach sexual maturity, and can then contribute to the continuation of their species. On top of that, Krogan can remain sexually active their entire adult lives, which as far as we know has no limit. Patriarch, the Krogan aid to Aria in Purgatory was a veteran of the Rachni Wars and he was still remarkably spry despite being well over 2,000 years old. So you have a species that can have up to 1,000 children a year per female, who remain sexually active their entire lives, and could quite possibly be biologically immortal. How is any of this relatable to humanity and our morals?

 

Even if the Krogan weren't super violent, and didn't cause widespread destruction across the galaxy, something like the Genophage would still be necessary as that kind of exponential population growth is unsustainable. Give unrestricted Krogan breeding a few centuries, and they will overrun the whole of Citadel space with their sheer numbers. You know how in other science fiction settings you have that Horde of Alien Locusts that devour everything in their path, like WH40K's Tyranids? Well in Mass Effect's case that's the Krogan without the Genophage.  

[Ieldra]

@Vortext13:
That's what I meant with my comment about decisions that should have disastrous outcomes if you do what feels good at the moment. Run the numbers on the krogan and curing the genophage seems outright insane. Instead, the story tailors the outcomes so everything works out in spite of those numbers.

[Il Divo]

Even if the Krogan respected the Rachni, they were the ones to systematically kill them all and then clap each other on the back and treat that extermination like a feather in their respective caps. I'm not saying that the Rachni were undeserving of that outcome; indeed, an invasion of a highly aggressive species that refused to negotiate could only end badly. I just find it odd how the narrative can have the Krogan cheering each other on for a genocide they committed and have no qualms with it, but when the galactic society implements the Genophage to stop the Rebellions; an option chosen over killing them all just like the Rachni; suddenly its a great evil. The narrative is really indecisive here.

 

So genocide is bad, but if you happen to look like scary bugs it's okay to wipe you out. But it's completely fine for a highly aggressive species to (arguably) cause more damage to the galaxy than said space bugs in their unprovoked war, but if you implement a method of control and containment on this hyper aggressive species, then suddenly you are the worst being in the universe.

 

 

But let's say that BioWare's narrative is right and we should care deeply about the fate of this alien and how unjustly their children are being killed off. If that's true then I want equal priority given to the Rachni children, mentally handicapped children to boot, that Shepard and Co. murder as they go through Peak 15. Heck, our friendly neighborhood Krogan, Wrex is gleefully slaughtering the week old new born without a second thought, plus he argues for melting a defenseless mother with acid. Kinda double standards don't you think?

 

 

I could have the narrative wrong on this one, but wasn't this also predicated on the idea that the Rachni appeared to be completely mindless? Again, this goes back to the point of Council's role in up-lifting the Krogan in the first place.  

 

Yes, it's a double standard in the sense that genocide is genocide. But I suspect most people would be more adverse to the murder of a group of sentient people than they would against apparently mindless space bugs murdering everyone without hesitation. The murder of the Rachni Queen is in a sense justifiable, given that our only meaningful experience with these guys has been outright murder and hostility. The very premise of killing the Rachni Queen is based around the idea that we might not be able to trust her motives. 

[Il Divo]

1 in 1,000 sure looks like a lot, but you have to remember that Krogan females can have 1,000 offspring a year. So one kid a year, that's essentially the same as human women. And therein lies the problem with the Genophage arc, it tries to give human emotional and moral outlooks on a species that is clearly very alien to us.

 

The Krogan are an R-Selected species, their whole evolution is centered around popping out as many offspring as possible because a very large percentage of those offspring are never going to reach maturity. Really, the Krogan should place no value on an individual until they reach sexual maturity, and can then contribute to the continuation of their species. On top of that, Krogan can remain sexually active their entire adult lives, which as far as we know has no limit. Patriarch, the Krogan aid to Aria in Purgatory was a veteran of the Rachni Wars and he was still remarkably spry despite being well over 2,000 years old. So you have a species that can have up to 1,000 children a year per female, who remain sexually active their entire lives, and could quite possibly be biologically immortal. How is any of this relatable to humanity and our morals?

 

 

That's not an apt comparison from what we see of the Krogan either. There's something to be said for the idea that a species which births 1,000 offspring per year is going to have a very different view of morality. And Bioware could have written the Krogan to be the way you describe. 

 

But that's also not what we see in-game in the case of the Krogan. The fact that the entire race has essentially given into despair over the Genophage indicates that there is at least some overlap with our own values, which has impacted their viewpoint. Ex: Wrex's reaction to curing/sabotaging the genophage, his reaction to Eve's pregnancy, etc. Somebody pointed this out in another thread; Bioware set out to create species which were "alien" to us, but in many cases, the end result was that they simply created species which exhibited somewhat more extreme tendencies of a typical human personality. The Krogan likewise fall within that range. We're not talking about robots here. 

[Quarian Master Race]

I could have the narrative wrong on this one, but wasn't this also predicated on the idea that the Rachni appeared to be completely mindless? Again, this goes back to the point of Council's role in up-lifting the Krogan in the first place.  

 

Yes, it's a double standard in the sense that genocide is genocide. But I suspect most people would be more adverse to the murder of a group of sentient people than they would against apparently mindless space bugs murdering everyone without hesitation. The murder of the Rachni Queen is in a sense justifiable, given that our only meaningful experience with these guys has been outright murder and hostility. The very premise of killing the Rachni Queen is based around the idea that we might not be able to trust her motives. 

I hope not, because declaring them "mindless" would be hilariously racist. Rachni are capable of building FTL capable ships so they clearly posses intelligence,  moreso than krogan for instance. Their role in ME3's war assets is a tech one, helping to build the Crucible, which suggests they are particularly adept at it. Their sentience is absolutely not in question. They cry out in pain when injured or killed like any animal, and the queen is quite clearly capable of advanced emotions. They even employ advanced features of cultural expression, like music. There's no basis for assigning the rachni any less value than the other organic species apart from prejudice against anything that lacks two arms, legs and our particular type of social structure/ manner of emoting. Genociding them from existence was morally repugnant. It's never necessary to resort to such extreme measures as a military necessity. Destroying their military, confining them to Suen and destroying any remaining ships they attempt to build until you can establish communication would have been more than enough.

 

 Rachni genocide was the most monstrous thing to happen in the trilogy's known history until the Reapers show up. At least the quarian genocide after the initial uprising was carried out by machines unconscious of the harm they were doing, and "only" wiped 99.5% of the species rather than virtually 100%. The genophage is incomparable to deliberate genocide to extinction. The krogan birthrate is still at more than viable pre industrial levels with "only" 1 child per year per female (per capita average) that will live for potentially thousands of years (humans without a genophage have lower birthrates than that). The only thing that can kill the krogan off like the Council deliberately did to an entire species of advanced, intelligent sentients is their own cynicism and outright refusal to implement population control just as both the quarians and salarians do in the same damn setting.

[Il Divo]

I hope not, because declaring them "mindless" would be hilariously racist. Rachni are capable of building FTL capable ships so they clearly posses vast intelligence,  moreso than krogan for instance. Their role in ME3's war assets is a tech one, helping to build the Crucible, which suggests they are particularly adept at it. Their sentience is absolutely not in question. They cry out in pain when injured or killed like any animal, and the queen is quite clearly capable of advanced emotions. There's no basis for assigning the rachni any less value than the other organic species apart from prejudice against anything that lacks two arms, legs and our particular type of social structure/ manner of emoting. Genociding them from existence was morally repugnant. It's never necessary to resort to such extreme measures as a military necessity. Destroying their military, confining them to Suen and destroying any remaining ships they attempt to build until you can establish communication would have been more than enough.

 

 

 

Keep in mind that as per ME1's codex, the Rachni refused to surrender, resulting in their utter extermination. The queen we meet is quite capable of advanced emotions on Noveria, that's not established before this point. 

 

It should be pointed out too that their ability to feel pain isn't really relevant Yes, a cat is also capable of feeling physical pain. I suspect most people would place far more weight on genocide against a sentient group of people than they would a cat. Multiply that times ten for a race of giant bugs murdering without any sense of distinction, who do not have any clear ability to communicate with us as a species. 

 

The only part here that works out in favor of the Rachni is their FTL capabilities. But even that is meaningless in the face of their actions during the war. I'm not going to say the Rachni got what they deserved, since ME2 and 3 have indicated that they were being mind-controlled in some capacity. But the Council acted in pretty much the most sensible way possible all things considered. 

[Iakus]

Ugh, I was hoping that we wouldn't derail this into an ending thread. Just to answer iakus (due to direct quote):

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?

I am sorry, as I didn't intend for this to devolve into an ending thread.  THough I must say that ME3's ending itself does touch upon "moral dilemmas" as the thread title states.

 

But in answer to your question I would say that moral ambiguity requires both a benefit and a drawback.  A trade-off that the player should be willing to contemplate.  "If I do this, then I get that, but this will also happen.  Is it worth it?"  If none of the options allow enough of a "benefit" or a "drawback" then the choice stops being ambiguous.  In other words, if even the "least evil" is to bad a deal, then where is the choice? "Pick your poison" is not ambiguity.  

 

In the case of moral ambiguity, the question gets a little trickier, as people have been wrestling with the definition of "what is moral?" for thousands of years.  In addition, simple material gain and even survival are not necessarily "benefits" for a moral choice.  As the line from "A Man For All Seasons" goes: Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?  

[Iakus]

@Vortext13:
That's what I meant with my comment about decisions that should have disastrous outcomes if you do what feels good at the moment. Run the numbers on the krogan and curing the genophage seems outright insane. Instead, the story tailors the outcomes so everything works out in spite of those numbers.

It actually depends.  They make curing the genophage seem like the "right" choice if Wrex and/or Eve are around.  More so if both are.  The implication being they are able to keep the krogan in line.  Perhaps with population control or some such.  WIth Wreav alone in charge, then sabotaging the genophage turns into the Paragon (ie, the "good") option.

[Quarian Master Race]

Keep in mind that as per ME1's codex, the Rachni refused to surrender, resulting in their utter extermination. The queen we meet is quite capable of advanced emotions on Noveria, that's not established before this point. 

 

It should be pointed out too that their ability to feel pain isn't really relevant Yes, a cat is also capable of feeling physical pain. I suspect most people would place far more weight on genocide against a sentient group of people than they would a cat. Multiply that times ten for a race of giant bugs murdering without any sense of distinction, who do not have any clear ability to communicate with us as a species. 

 

The only part here that works out in favor of the Rachni is their FTL capabilities. But even that is meaningless in the face of their actions during the war. I'm not going to say the Rachni got what they deserved, since ME2 and 3 have indicated that they were being mind-controlled in some capacity. But the Council acted in pretty much the most sensible way possible all things considered. 

Or the Council made little to zero effort to get a surrender, and continued to hunt a species that was functionally defeated to extinction for mere sport. Genocide is extremely hard to prosecute on intelligent creatures, and requires concerted effort to hunt down every individual of an entire species or group, as everyone who has tried to do so in our history has discovered when they failed at managing as much. Find me a large scale war in history where the loser lost 100% of its population, and I'll concede the point that genocide was in any way necessary. The Codex is essentially an in universe history book written by the victors and has multiple deliberate factual inaccuracies. It whitewashing racially motivated killing of entire species would not be surprising.

 

Stop using the word sentient incorrectly. It is the ability to feel physical qualia subjectively (in an animal's case via posession of sensory organs and neural tissue), and has little to nothing to do with intelligence. Even ants are sentient, and there is reason to assign them some moral value because of it (i.e killing animals simply for the lulz is most definitely cruel and morally wrong). If you want to assign value to humanlike intelligence, the word is sapience, and the rachni as a species are definitively in possesion of both anyway, albiet the nature of their sapience is alien to our anthropomorphic understanding. To imply that the Noveria queen is the first anyone has met when  killing them was specifically stated to require krogan going into their underground structures within close range to do so is nonsense logic.

 

"Council" and sensible don't belong in the same sentence, and not just for monstrosities like the multiple species level genocides they are perpetrators of or accomplices to. Again how can the rachni attack anything if they are confined to a single world and dissalowed to build FTL ships? Killing them off entirely because "eh, can't be bothered with em" is morally indefensible. 

 

It's a good thing this is a video game, because applying this sort of logic to any real sentient and sapient creature in arguing for their extermination would be horrendously racist. Like, Hitler level racist, except he only killed about 60% of the target group rather than 100%.

[AlanC9]

But in answer to your question I would say that moral ambiguity requires both a benefit and a drawback. A trade-off that the player should be willing to contemplate. "If I do this, then I get that, but this will also happen. Is it worth it?" If none of the options allow enough of a "benefit" or a "drawback" then the choice stops being ambiguous. In other words, if even the "least evil" is to bad a deal, then where is the choice? "Pick your poison" is not ambiguity.

What's the standard for "too bad a deal"? Too bad relative to what?

You seem to be saying that the player should actively want one of the available choices, but that can't be right.

[Iakus]

That's not an apt comparison from what we see of the Krogan either. There's something to be said for the idea that a species which births 1,000 offspring per year is going to have a very different view of morality. And Bioware could have written the Krogan to be the way you describe. 

 

But that's also not what we see in-game in the case of the Krogan. The fact that the entire race has essentially given into despair over the Genophage indicates that there is at least some overlap with our own values, which has impacted their viewpoint. Ex: Wrex's reaction to curing/sabotaging the genophage, his reaction to Eve's pregnancy, etc. Somebody pointed this out in another thread; Bioware set out to create species which were "alien" to us, but in many cases, the end result was that they simply created species which exhibited somewhat more extreme tendencies of a typical human personality. The Krogan likewise fall within that range. We're not talking about robots here. 

According to the codex, Prior to the genophage, the krogan did not, in fact place much value on the individual.  Their combat tactics were to send soldier out in huge waves and battle by attrition.  After the genophage was introduced, such methods were no longer sustainable, and the krogan learned to be more efficient and minimize casualties:

 

Krogan: Military Doctrine

 

Traditional krogan tactics were built on attritional mass-unit warfare. Equipped with cheap rugged gear, troop formations were powerful but inflexible. Command and control was very centralized; soldiers in the field who saw a target contacted their commanders behind the lines to arrange fire support.

 

Since the genophage, the krogan can no longer afford the casualties of the old horde attacks. The Battle Masters are a match for any ten soldiers of another species. To a Battle Master, killing is a science. They focus on developing clean, brute-force economy of motion that exploits their brutal strength to incapacitate enemies with a swift single blow of overwhelming power.

[Iakus]

What's the standard for "too bad a deal"? Too bad relative to what?

You seem to be saying that the player should actively want one of the available choices, but that can't be right.

You are correct, that's not right.

 

The player should, however, see it as a valid option.  They should be options the player should be willing to settle for if no "Golden Option" is available.  

[AlanC9]

Find me a war in history where the loser lost 100% of its population, and I'll concede the point that genocide was in any way necessary.

Well, I can think of a few cases where 100% of the population was either exterminated or enslaved, resulting in the total destruction of the political entity. But that isn't quite the same thing. And there are a few cases inthe Bible, but that isn't really history. Come to think of it, doesn't God have King Saul overthrown because he refuses to completely exterminate the Amalekites?

[Gothfather]

Sorry, no offense, but what nonsense is this?

 

Saving Kaidan or Ashley is not a 'moral' dilemma. It's a tactical one. The mission parameters and priorities trump sexuality, romance and 'feelz'.

 

If Bioware have suddenly developed the ability to have their 'moral choices' affect things within the game they were presented, then sure, I'd like more of them. But if they're gonna stick with laughable choices where the only feedback you get is how that choice makes you and others 'feel', then no. Cut the bullshit.

 

I have to agree. The Kaiden/Ashley choice was NOT a moral dilemma because they were both soldiers both on the same mission doing different parts. Where is the moral ambiguity to make it a dilemma of a moral variety? is it a dilemma? By all means. Should bioware have such choices in their games? Again yes, this is especially true in combat orientated games where people think if you are just "good" enough, fast enough, strong enough or smart enough you can save everyone. Combat results in DEATH what officer goes through combat without one of their decisions resulting in deaths under their command? Shepard. After the virmire choice Shepard and the me2 prologue shepard can go through two entire games with no deaths under his command. Everyone that dies is an x crew member.

 

Moral dilemmas are good to add to a game but i doubt will work well in Mass Effect because of how the Paragon/Renegade systems work. Because of the whole binary morality mechanics most player when confronted with a choice will experience zero dilemma at all because they will make the choice based on mechanics. Also dilemmas require consequences and when the consequences are the same there is no dilemma which is what you get with legion's loyalty mission in me2. Thirdly if one choice is obviously superior then again you lose the dilemma quality to the choice because people just pick the one that is best. You need some way to create a dilemma, the desire demon in DAI tries to do that but they wimped out in the creating a sexual fulfilment fantasy and wimped out in ACTUALLY giving the player something powerful. SO there was zero temptation zero dilemma. 

 

I am aware that some of the points I make are contradictory if viewed in isolation, what you must do is create a situation where there is temptation, consequences and yet isn't so equal as to be pointless or so divergent to create the "obvious" choice. This is why moral dilemma's are often so poorly done in games. There are too many conflicting pieces of game design all converging at once.

 

The contrived can only stop one missile one is going to the military infrastructure the other to the civilian population centre ISN'T a dilemma as the choice has zero consequences, zero importance, zero temptation to the player it is just a pointless choice to farm your desired paragon or renegade points.

[Quarian Master Race]

Well, I can think of a few cases where 100% of the population was either exterminated or enslaved, resulting in the total destruction of the political entity. But that isn't quite the same thing. And there are a few cases inthe Bible, but that isn't really history. Come to think of it, doesn't God have King Saul overthrown because he refuses to completely exterminate the Amalekites?

That's why I redacted it to include "large scale". A rival tribe wiping out a hundred villagers that compose an entire political/ethnic group isn't really a "war" and would only be genocide on a very small scale. This isn't even remotely comparable to eliminating say the entire human species with its billions of individuals. You'd have to have absolutely no sense of scale, which is what I think is going on here given the subject matter is a scifi video game where the billions are not actually shown being shot, stabbed, burned to death, mutilated, tortured, having their children eaten etc, but it is just relayed to us in secondhand accounts from the side that perpetrated it.

It's unquestionably genocide. In fact, the UN definition of genocide isn't just killing to extinction like with the Rachni, actually. What the Council does to the krogan in controlling their birthrate and what they do to the quarians in "deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction" would also fit the bill.

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,

racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to

members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its

physical destruction in whole or in part1

; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]

forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Why the governing galactic body in 2183 is less culturally evolved, and more barbaric and racist than human society was in 1948 is anyone's guess. Chalk that one up to bad writing.

No, the Bible isn't really history. More like parahistory