256 réponses à ce sujet

[Caz Neerg]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

Morally correct and logically correct are *very* often not the same thing.

Incorrect, absolutely incorrect.

If we can't agree on this then I'm done, you seem to believe doing anything morally right is thus the "illogical" thing to do.

Sorry you feel that way. There is always a proper way to get the result you want.

My point was that Renegades aren't the smart choice, neither are Paragons. Both are logical, both have their arguments. Ironically your insistence that Paragon was "morally right" suggested that Renegades are "morally wrong".

I never said that doing anything which could be framed as morally right was illogical.  I pointed out that basing your decisions *purely* on moral considerations often results in illogical choices.  And if by "proper," you mean there is always a morally acceptable way to get the result you want, then sorry, no there isn't.  That isn't how reality works.  In reality, people often have to choose between achieving a goal and maintaining moral consistency, they don't have the luxury of doing both at the same time.

And I'm not suggesting that Renegades are morally wrong.  I am suggesting that the Paragon approach is one fundamentally based on moral concerns, while the Renegade approach is a fundamentally amoral one based on practical concerns.  Amoral and immoral are not the same thing.

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

In reality, people often have to choose between achieving a goal and maintaining moral consistency, they don't have the luxury of doing both at the same time.

In reality, plenty of people learn to adapt but also stick to their morals.



You may be morally corrupt, but don't think everyone else is like you.

[KnightofPhoenix]

stofsk wrote...
 'Might makes right'? Anything goes to survive? That last one can apply equally to the reapers, after all, and they're the logical extention of both philosophies - and they're the goddamn villains of the story.

And do you absolutely have to hate the reapers in order to fight them? Do you absolutely have to be self righteous and judge them from your moral perspective? Do you absolutely have to consider them evil in order to fight them?

I find it laughable that in every single conflict humanity is in, it always tries to hide the simple fact that its war is nothing but a question of survival and power while washing it with pretty (stupid) ideals of "good", "evil", democracy, tyranny and whatever other fanciful ideas politicians like to use to drug the masses.

Our fight against the reapers is a fight for survival and power. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with ideals. Nothing to do with morality. Nothing to do with anything except basic survival. To put it more generally. Every single war humanity has been in was, is and will always be a question of survival, power and dominance. Ideals are only tools.  

[Caz Neerg]

stofsk wrote...
If you don't want to debate the ethics of this scenario, why are you bothering to debate at all? If you consider the moral implications to be 'juvenile' then what point exactly are you making? 'Might makes right'? Anything goes to survive? That last one can apply equally to the reapers, after all, and they're the logical extention of both philosophies - and they're the goddamn villains of the story.

My basic argument is that in a situation with stakes this high, amoral decision making is fundamentally superior to moral decision making, and getting bogged down in what is morally "right" or "wrong" is, from a practical perspective, well... wrong.

And yes, the logic can apply to the Reapers.  So what?  We aren't playing Reapers, we play a human.  It doesn't matter whether or not the Reaper perspective is logical or valid, because their goals are incompatible with ours, and when two groups have incompatible goals, they label each other as the "bad guys."

[DeathsHands5]

I think we're getting way too deep into this.

In short, giving the base to Cerberus is incredibly high risk of something going wrong, due to the nature of Reaper technology, and that letting TIM have highly advanced technology would further Cerberus and their pro-human agenda. Not good. Destroying the base might deny the galaxy technology that could prove advantageous, but it destroys the risk of people being indoctrinated and keeps it away from TIM.

So it's a choice of letting TIM have access to highly advanced tech, although it could be advantageous, or denying anyone's ability to abuse the Reaper tech although at the same time denying the advantage Reaper tech would give.

Modifié par DeathsHands5, 10 février 2010 - 11:27 .

[Caz Neerg]

Mikazukinoyaiba2 wrote...

In reality, people often have to choose between achieving a goal and maintaining moral consistency, they don't have the luxury of doing both at the same time.

In reality, plenty of people learn to adapt but also stick to their morals.

You may be morally corrupt, but don't think everyone else is like you.

True, most people do everything in their power to avoid hard choices, so that they never have to choose between achieving their goals and compromising their morals.  But don't kid yourself, at least as many people adjust their morals to fit their actions as adjust their actions to fit their morals.  Adaptation works both ways.

[OfTheFaintSmile]

Divine Flame wrote...

Keeping the base to give to TIM is like if America handed over a nuke to Al-Queda and then asked politely please don't use this for your own means. You just are supposed to study it but not use it as a weapon. Thanks Osama for understanding.

This statement doesn't make sense. America's and Al-Quaeda's interests are not aligned. As a renegade my interests are aligned with TIM's. I want a human dominated empire if he'll make it happen.

[Caz Neerg]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

stofsk wrote...
 'Might makes right'? Anything goes to survive? That last one can apply equally to the reapers, after all, and they're the logical extention of both philosophies - and they're the goddamn villains of the story.

And do you absolutely have to hate the reapers in order to fight them? Do you absolutely have to be self righteous and judge them from your moral perspective? Do you absolutely have to consider them evil in order to fight them?

I find it laughable that in every single conflict humanity is in, it always tries to hide the simple fact that its war is nothing but a question of survival and power while washing it with pretty (stupid) ideals of "good", "evil", democracy, tyranny and whatever other fanciful ideas politicians like to use to drug the masses.

Our fight against the reapers is a fight for survival and power. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with ideals. Nothing to do with morality. Nothing to do with anything except basic survival. To put it more generally. Every single war humanity has been in was, is and will always be a question of survival, power and dominance. Ideals are only tools.  

Someone who gets it.  Ultimately, the trilogy is going to support this point, as despite the vast ideological differences between the Paragon and Renegade paths, both will be capable of leading to successful defeat of the Reapers.

[KnightofPhoenix]

DeathsHands5 wrote...

letting TIM have highly advanced technology would further Cerberus and their pro-human agenda. Not good.

"Not good" to you. I am pro-human and Cerberus' agenda fits my own.

Plus, there is no sign of indocrination being used in the base. The collectors are not indoctrinated, but genetically modified to serve, like the Keepers. If the human reaper can indoctrinate (which I doubt, it was't even near completion), then the process is very slow and Cerberus can deal with it.
So indoctrination is not an issue. It either doesn't exist within the base (the reapers have no interest or need to indoctrinate the collectors and it's not clear that a larva reaper can indoctrinate anyone), or it can easily be delt with.

Your arguyment doesn't make it even slightly logical for me to destroy the base. WAr is about risks. I would take that risks, because the potential benefits are much higher.

[FlintlockJazz]

Caz Neerg wrote...

stofsk wrote...
If you don't want to debate the ethics of this scenario, why are you bothering to debate at all? If you consider the moral implications to be 'juvenile' then what point exactly are you making? 'Might makes right'? Anything goes to survive? That last one can apply equally to the reapers, after all, and they're the logical extention of both philosophies - and they're the goddamn villains of the story.

My basic argument is that in a situation with stakes this high, amoral decision making is fundamentally superior to moral decision making, and getting bogged down in what is morally "right" or "wrong" is, from a practical perspective, well... wrong.

And yes, the logic can apply to the Reapers.  So what?  We aren't playing Reapers, we play a human.  It doesn't matter whether or not the Reaper perspective is logical or valid, because their goals are incompatible with ours, and when two groups have incompatible goals, they label each other as the "bad guys."

No, that's all your opinion, and is as baseless as everything else, people made a choice based on their own internal logic and ethics or that of their chraracter, just because you believe personally that the practical choice is saving the base does not make it so, for another destroying a base that is potentially harmful to the long term survival of their species is the practical course of action, the evidence for which has been presented to you.  Stop dictating your beliefs as fact, Paragon and Renegade are both valid approaches just different perspectives, that is all.

[DeathsHands5]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

DeathsHands5 wrote...

letting TIM have highly advanced technology would further Cerberus and their pro-human agenda. Not good.

"Not good" to you. I am pro-human and Cerberus' agenda fits my own.

Plus, there is no sign of indocrination being used in the base. The collectors are not indoctrinated, but genetically modified to serve, like the Keepers. If the human reaper can indoctrinate (which I doubt, it was't even near completion), then the process is very slow and Cerberus can deal with it.
So indoctrination is not an issue. It either doesn't exist within the base (the reapers have no interest or need to indoctrinate the collectors and it's not clear that a larva reaper can indoctrinate anyone), or it can easily be delt with.

Your arguyment doesn't make it even slightly logical for me to destroy the base. WAr is about risks. I would take that risks, because the potential benefits are much higher.

So.... your proof that there is no chance of indoctrination is the fact that the race genetically altered to already serve the Reapers are not getting indoctrinated?

Overall, Cerberus and The Illusive Man are made out to be the bad guys, whether people feel they need to reject the fact or not.

[Asheer_Khan]

@Kileyan.
If you will pay attention to Queen's message delivered on Illum you will heard words "We build, we dig and teach our children songs until day when together we eradicate darkness from the galaxy".
So this was clear point that rachni will stand on your side when final war will begin, as much as Krogans lead by Wrex or Quarians/Geth alliance.
But catch is that this alliance option will be available mostly for paragons when renegades will remain whit thier delusion of humanity grandure.

I have question for all "pro station keepers".

Why reapers cut off Proteans from Mass Relays not allowing them to gather fleet to fight them in direct combat?
Maybe that devil is not so scarry as he want us to believe that he is?

Somehow i think that greates weapon of reapers is right now fear factor but if Shepard and his/her allies do manage to override this and gather large force to face them direct battle outcome might be veeery surprised for many players.
Why?, because reapers do not advanced.
Sovieregin itself say that they come, wipe out any high advanced civilization (?) and move back to dark space laying in hibernating stance for another 50 000 years.
According to "heretics" Geth Reapers are pinacle of non organic life so that's mean that they reach apex of the advantage process and maybe they need those raids for further advancements (similar to Borg) and who known... maybe thier weapon arsenal is more old as we can imagine.

Look at collectors ship and his attack on fully upgraded Normandy.
Normandy not only can survived direct hit from that beam but send back that ship at the debris field so imagine fleet of huge dreadnouths armed whit similar to Normandy Shields and guns (if not more powerfull ) against reapers ships.
And those guns don't come from Cerberus but form Turians so maybe faith in Cerberus ability to stop reapers is way too big?

Modifié par Asheer_Khan, 10 février 2010 - 11:46 .

[Stofsk]

Caz Neerg wrote...

stofsk wrote...
If you don't want to debate the ethics of this scenario, why are you bothering to debate at all? If you consider the moral implications to be 'juvenile' then what point exactly are you making? 'Might makes right'? Anything goes to survive? That last one can apply equally to the reapers, after all, and they're the logical extention of both philosophies - and they're the goddamn villains of the story.

My basic argument is that in a situation with stakes this high, amoral decision making is fundamentally superior to moral decision making, and getting bogged down in what is morally "right" or "wrong" is, from a practical perspective, well... wrong.

Its only superior in the sense that you get what you want now, **** everybody else or any other consideration. Ethical decision making, particularly consequential ethics, takes into account what might happen down the track, which amoral decision making fundamentally doesn't take into account. (because its all about immediate gains, what's right for now etc)

I'll take ethical decision making any day.

[KnightofPhoenix]

DeathsHands5 wrote...

So.... your proof that there is no chance of indoctrination is the fact that the race genetically altered to already serve the Reapers are not getting indoctrinated?

Overall, Cerberus and The Illusive Man are made out to be the bad guys, whether people feel they need to reject the fact or not.

I never said "proof". I said that it doesn't seem to be the case. The likelihood of the base using indocrination is slim, as it's not needed within the base. The only way to truly find out is to study it, which I can do. Destroying the base on the otherhand is irreversable.
Furthermore, indoc trination, being a slow process, can easily be countered. So it does not pose a "zomg what have we done" kind of risk.

Hahaha good one. What "fact"? Since when something being "good" or "bad" was a "fact"?
The only "fact" I see is that you see them as "evil". Your opinion, while you are entitled to have it, is completely and utterly inconsequential to me and even more so when you arrogantly want to present it as "fact".

[Mikazukinoyaiba2]

If anything, the renegades suffer from being short-sighted rather than being pragmatic, unless of course they intend to help create a Human Supramacy.

[Fishy]

- The person directly responsible for that... is on my team.

And who had the technology and the resource to do this?Miranda?The whole station was made for Shepard.Miranda was the director.But she made it clear that this project was made possible because of Cerberus and Tim.Also we don't know all the detail.We simply know that it's  the greatest medecine project ever done by humanity.It's was done by Cerberus . Not the Alliance.

- Given it has the same shape and drive system, this couldn't have been possible without having the plans to the SR1 anyway. Improving a design that's already known is infinitely easier than figuring out alien technology that nobody understands.

Do you even realize that the whole concept of the Normandy 1 was made by Cerberus and not the alliance?
You should talk to EDI after your playthrough..The whole normandy 1 shematic was made by Cerberus

Modifié par Suprez30, 10 février 2010 - 11:49 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

stofsk wrote...

Ethical decision making, particularly consequential ethics, takes into account what might happen down the track, which amoral decision making fundamentally doesn't take into account. (because its all about immediate gains, what's right for now etc)

That has got to be the most useless "argument" I have ever heard. So in order to be farsighted and pragmatic and think about long term gains, I absolutely have to be "ethical"? Where did you get that one from?
How did you come up to the conclusion that amoral decision making is fundamentally only concerned about the present and not about the future? So Machiavelli was only concerned about the short term gains of the Prince?

If anything, amoral decision making is alot more flexible is ascertaining what is good for both the short run and the long run.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 février 2010 - 11:52 .

[CRISIS1717]

You guys are putting too much emphasis on the base. I doubt when I import it will say Game over because you destroyed the base you lost the game.

The team also agree its the right decision. Stop hating on paragon Shep because he has morals.

[Asheer_Khan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

DeathsHands5 wrote...

So.... your proof that there is no chance of indoctrination is the fact that the race genetically altered to already serve the Reapers are not getting indoctrinated?

Overall, Cerberus and The Illusive Man are made out to be the bad guys, whether people feel they need to reject the fact or not.

I never said "proof". I said that it doesn't seem to be the case. The likelihood of the base using indocrination is slim, as it's not needed within the base. The only way to truly find out is to study it, which I can do. Destroying the base on the otherhand is irreversable.
Furthermore, indoc trination, being a slow process, can easily be countered. So it does not pose a "zomg what have we done" kind of risk.

Hahaha good one. What "fact"? Since when something being "good" or "bad" was a "fact"?
The only "fact" I see is that you see them as "evil". Your opinion, while you are entitled to have it, is completely and utterly inconsequential to me and even more so when you arrogantly want to present it as "fact".

Well great example how indoctrination work is Shiala's story how she and Benezia become  tools in Saren's hands before they realize what was hapened.
And like i said early if such powerful Asari as Benezia become so easy victim of indoctrination then imagine how quick weak in compare to Asari human mind can fail a prey of indoctrination because indoctrination waves are impossible to detect before will be too late.

Modifié par Asheer_Khan, 10 février 2010 - 11:52 .

[Malanek]

The only thing wrong with keeping the collector base is giving it exclusively to cerberus. Sure it needs to be handled with some care but getting the data out to as many trusted research organisations as possible is the way to go to deliver maximum benefit in the upcoming war.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Asheer_Khan wrote...
Well great example how indoctrination work is Shiala's story how she and Benezia become  tools in Saren's hands before they realize what was hapened.
And like i said early if such powerful Asari as Benezia become so easy victim of indoctrination then imagine how quick weak in compare to Asari human mind can fail a prey of indoctrination because indoctrination waves are impossible to detect before will be too late.

The Matriach went there with the arrogant assumption that she can deal with it.
As the video logs in the Cerberus ship show, the signs of indoctrination are slow and clear. Headaches, hallucinations come first and then develop into loss of control. That process takes time and Cerberus can easily deal with it.
So while those being indoctrinated wouldn't notice, those who monitor them would and would thus be able to rotate them regurarily.

Ad keep in mind that the Matriach was indoctrinated by Sovereign. The Collector base has no reaper inside it, except the larva Reaper. It likely can't even indoctrinate yet and even if it can, I doubt it can be as powerful as a full grown Reaper's indoctrination.

And once again. You don't know if there is indoctination in the base. By studying it, we can find out and destroy it if need be. IF you destroy it first, just becuse there is a small risk, then you will never truly find out, unless through meta-gaming.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 février 2010 - 11:58 .

[Stofsk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

stofsk wrote...

Ethical decision making, particularly consequential ethics, takes into account what might happen down the track, which amoral decision making fundamentally doesn't take into account. (because its all about immediate gains, what's right for now etc)

That has got to be the most useless "argument" I have ever heard. So in order to be farsighted and pragmatic and think about long term gains, I absolutely have to be "ethical"? Where did you get that one from?

Thousands of years of human endeavour. Or do you think I came up with terms 'consequential ethics' just now? What about utilitarianism? Deonotology?

How did you come up to the conclusion that amoral decision making is fundamentally only concerned about the present and not about the future?

Because it only works for the one making the decision, and whatever the **** he wants he gets if he doesn't care who gets in the way.

So Machiavelli was only concerned about the short term gains of the Prince?

No, Machiavelli was concerned with how a Prince should rule in a wildly different political system than what we in the west have. Machiavelli isn't considered an authority on ethics, but on being an utter bastard.

If anything, amoral decision making is alot more flexible is ascertaining what is good for both the short run and the long run.

No, it isn't. That has to be most useless 'argument' I have ever heard.

[Caz Neerg]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
No, that's all your opinion, and is as baseless as everything else, people made a choice based on their own internal logic and ethics or that of their chraracter, just because you believe personally that the practical choice is saving the base does not make it so, for another destroying a base that is potentially harmful to the long term survival of their species is the practical course of action, the evidence for which has been presented to you.  Stop dictating your beliefs as fact, Paragon and Renegade are both valid approaches just different perspectives, that is all.

From an out of universe perspective, yes, they are both valid perspectives.  From an in universe perspective, they don't yet have clue one how to fight the Reapers when they arrive.  The logical conclusion at this point is that barring some miracle, everybody is going to die.  Throwing away *any* source of knowledge in the current situation is simply not a rational choice, even if it is a moral one.

DeathsHands5 wrote...
Overall, Cerberus and The Illusive Man are made out to be the bad guys, whether people feel they need to reject the fact or not.

"Good guys" and "bad guys" are questions of perspective, not fact.  So it would be rejecting an opinion.

Modifié par Caz Neerg, 11 février 2010 - 12:17 .

[Sidney]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

You guys are putting too much emphasis on the base. I doubt when I import it will say Game over because you destroyed the base you lost the game.

That'd teach the goody goods of the world if they got to the final battle and some bit of tech from the base was needed to win. I'd smile a bit, or a lot, at that. Then your decisions have consequences.

[Kileyan]

stofsk wrote...

Its only superior in the sense that you get what you want now, **** everybody else or any other consideration. Ethical decision making, particularly consequential ethics, takes into account what might happen down the track, which amoral decision making fundamentally doesn't take into account. (because its all about immediate gains, what's right for now etc)

I'll take ethical decision making any day.

But this isn't some debate about ethics in a college class. Well this discussion might be. But I try to keep it within the game world.

This is not a story about some people who might find it unethical to do drug tests on babies in order to cure a disease to save their wife, mother or children.That would be a rough but contained choice that you had to live with.

This is a story about the destruction of the entire galaxy by a race of things who with a single ship that had been dormant for 10000's of years was able to take on the best the coucil races had to offer.

Taking the high road and ethical decision making mean little when no one is left to pat themselves on the back for passing thier latest moral challenge. Out of game, we can discuss it, what would you do to survive!?

In game, these people immediate reality is the reapers and the loss of the entire galaxy, not to domination, not loss of territory or political control, but the extinction of entire races. This isn't the typical story of, is winning worth becoming like your enemy. There is no tomorrow if  you don't win.

Yeh, maybe you don't make some epic bad moral choices when the only thing you have to lose is some natural rescources or your countries border moving east or west by a few 100 miles. What would you do if the stakes were the total erasure of yours and every species you had ever met?

Would you in that world, as a politician, merchant, farmer or bartender, think to yourself..........yeh our species doesn't deserve to live if we can't beat them without being ethical? Can you really picture youself signing the death warrant for the entire galaxy because if you can't do it ethically, YOU WON'T DO IT AT ALL!.

Anyways, saving the base didn't have to be about building reapers, could have been used for intel and tech knowledge of their defenses. In a way the moral high ground crowd it correct. If IL was better person I'd have kept the base, I surely would have kept it if any option other than handing it to IL was a choice.

Modifié par Kileyan, 11 février 2010 - 12:25 .