211 réponses à ce sujet

[Flamewielder]

Esker02 wrote...

Out of all the crazy in this thread - and there's plenty of it to go around (I'm looking at you, TC)- your unique brand of moral nihilism wins out. Your problem is you're treating the Reapers like they were dropped into the universe, totally innocent and uncontrolling of their nature. I might be able to sympathize, or at the very least understand, your position if the Reapers were wholly organic beings - their nature an unpredictable consequence of their particular chaotic evolution.

You seem to be thinking I'm criticizing your character... I'm not.  Sci-fi is a wonderful excuse to discuss radical concepts and question common thinking. But bear with me... Your theory about a race sacrificing itself to become an immortal Reaper is interesting. Were they driven to it by necessity? Were they faced with impending destruction if they decided not to go through with it? We don't know (and, being your theory, may not be what Bioware has in mind for an origin, if they even have any theory on the matter). Does the collective entity thus created remember what motivated this decision? Does it regret having done so, given that the transformation may or may not have changed its outlook... or does it perceive this as a vast improvement over the prior individualistic level of existence? I would opt for the latter, as it would have committed suicide into some black hole a long time ago.

But they're not. They're constructs - meaning, their creators (and I'm coming more and more to the belief that their creators are the "original" Reapers, voluntarily sacrificed in a vain attempt at immortality) made them in this way, to be dependent on organic matter and to systematically harvest sentient beings. If I create a robot that I program to kill everything it sees, I am evil in its creation, yes, but the robot does not cease to be evil in its own right, as it was born of evil intentions.

The Geth are constructs, created by the Quarians. The Quarians tried to exterminate them by turning them off, the Geth defended themselves. Neither is "evil"; unless you're suggesting the Quarians are, since they are their creator and are thus responsible for both the Quarians and Geth slaughtering each other? I don't think so. I think the Quarians made an honest mistake, took risks and both races paid a heavy price for it.

We'll never know if the creators of the original Reaper ever intended to eventually force other races into a similar ascension. All we know is that that first Reaper eventually felt loneliness and attemped to create a "child". He may be absolutely and utterly convinced he's doing your species a favor by raising you to his immortal status. Does that make him "evil"? He explicitely refers to this process as an "ascension"... He's convinced he's doing your race a favor. Does he consider himself "evil"? I don't think so... Does he consider extinguishing your 150-year life as an individual as an insignificant price to pay for making your species immortal? Probably.

Moreover, if my theory about what the Reapers are is correct, we don't even have THAT problem. They're both the creator AND the robot, and thus guilty either way. The Reapers are not intended to be, AT ALL, an enemy that is supposed to be sympathetic or have any depth to them. They're ruthless, arrogant, EVIL, killing machines. Literally. Your arguments to try and compare their relationship to us akin to our relationship to fish might hold some weight with me if you could produce the slightest evidence that the same kind of cognitive superiority over fish which we enjoy is true of them in relation to us.

I'm saying that "humane" behavior is based on arbitrary criteria. Humans treat fish and dolphins differently based upon ill-defined criteria that essentially comes down to "dolphins are closer to humans than fish", I'm not inventing this: just look around and you see it all the time... Do I, as a human, hold another human life important? Yes! I'm not wise enough to tell if my life is worth more than any another human life. Why should Reapers feel otherwise? They ARE sentient, by your own admission... Do Reapers hold another Reaper's existence in high regard? I'm sure they do. Do Reapers honestly believe they are doing the right thing by converting the human species into one of their own? I think so.

Again, no moral high ground to be had on EITHER side. It's a fight for survival, nothing more, nothing less.

I would think, by virtue of the fact we had a conversation with a Reaper, such a divide is nonexistent. Because trust me, the day I can communicate with a fish is the day I stop eating them. Good vs. Evil is not nearly as subjective as you're claiming.

Ah... but since this is science fiction: what if you offered your talking fish to grow him hand and legs so he could survive on land and cease to be a fish altogether, would the fish accept? He might be happier as a fish. You may want to do it because you feel he'll die from increasing levels of water pollution if he stays in the water. You may try to convince him. He may accept or refuse. Should the whole species refuse, would you decide to save them from their own stupidity, or let them die in their toxic sludge?

Whatever the Reaper's reasoning, they feel it is better to save you from yourselves rather than let your species die off. Wether they are right to believe so, we have no way of knowing. Labelling them as "evil" is too simple IMHO.

And this is ridiculous and contradictory. I won't even bother to say, "See Above" for why it SHOULD in fact feel like a smiting of evil, but even under your own logic - you should feel no regret, just as you argue the Reapers should feel none. If it's all merely a struggle for survival, with no moral element, you have no reason to hesitate.

You're assuming "evil" intentions on the part of the Reapers based on your human perspective. I argue that EVEN if it is just a struggle for survival, you might feel regret over being forced to fight it out (i.e. Samara/Morith) or you could remain dispassionate about it. There is no absolute "good" or "evil" side in a fight for survival, and this creates great opportunities for storytelling (consider the Achaeans and Trojans of Homer's Illiad, no clear cut "good" or "evil" in there, except perhaps the gods using the mortal heroes as puppets).

To qualify "good" and "evil", you need a compatible frame of reference. You say I cannot compare a human with a fish or a dog or a dolphin... then how can you compare humans to biomechanical constructs who have lived for aeons? At least I share the same levro-protein DNA as the fish... He's a lot closer to us than Reapers are...

[Flamewielder]

Kaorunandrak wrote...

And as i said before we don't brain wash baby seals into bashing their own brains in or brain wash cows into slaughtering themselves where Reapers do. They mind rape people into serving them and killing their own. This makes them "evil".

They remove free will from the life they take and enslave. They pervert life, they don't do it for survival they do it because they can. They do it cause thats what they do. Melting members of a species down and turning them into a reaper thats ment to bring about the complete and total genocide of its own species let alone the entire galactic civilization is an extremly "evil"/morally wrong act. Mind raping in general is evil. And seeing how their entire civilization is not only capable BUT perfoms these acts as a whole that makes their race "evil".

By turning a species into a Reaper, They have created a LIFE. You and and your spouse will need to consume tonnes of living tissue (animal or otherwise) in order to live long enough to have and raise a baby. Do you deny the Reapers do what they do for reproduction? Even EDI suggests it is so... Since when is it "evil" to have a baby? Don't get me wrong: my Shepard will shoot to kill. He'll wipe the Reapers from the galaxy because there is no peaceful co-existence possible and he'll regret the necessity of it. He won't salve his conscience saying, "Oh they're just Evil..."

Many people loved Dragon Age:Origin because their was often no perfectly "good" or utterly "evil" answer to a problem. People may prefer clear-cut black and white and that's fine for High Fantasy but most people seem to prefer a story with a wider spectrum of gray tones...

Hence the interest in pursueing such a stimulating discussion! Is a whale "evil" for gobbling thousands of less evolved crustaceans in a single gulp to produce a baby whale? Would it be different if the krill could cry out "NOOOO!" before being dissolved in stomach acid? The whale has apparently no choice but to feed this way...

[Flamewielder]

cronshaw8 wrote...

the word "right" has no business in your post. "Rights" are entitlements that are assigned to members of a society based on moral codes; agreements; laws ect. Reapers are outside of any society. You might as well argue that Hurricane Katrina had the "right" to destroy New Orleans. Rights have nothing to do with a hurricane, hurricanes just are. If we could have stopped Hurricane Katrina we would have been morally obligated to do so. Just as Shepard is morally obligated to stop the Reapers. And the Reaper's sentience has nothing to do with it either. They have set themselves apart from and against every organic civilization and refuse to be judged/interpreted by those rules. So it is pointless to discuss their "rights"

I agree. No species has the "right" to wipe out another. A more interesting discussion is wether or not a species (Reapers) is "evil" for wanting to multiply at the expense of another species (Humanity). The Reapers do not appear to have much of a choice, judging from what little information has been revealed to us so far. Are they "evil" or just victims of their nature? The second option sounds more appealing to me but I'm a sucker for classic drama...

[wako58]

I never thought an advanced civilization capable of reasoned thought and action was ever a "victim of their nature". They choose to do what they do fully aware of the consequences to the other intelligent species they destroy. Because that's exactly what they propose, your destruction, their survival.

"Victim of their nature" implies a survival instinct indicative of lower life forms. They're interstellar travellers who have evolved over millenia. I don't think there's a lot of pure unbridled instinct left in them.

Modifié par wako58, 02 mars 2010 - 10:01 .

[Kaorunandrak]

Flamewielder wrote...

Kaorunandrak wrote...

And as i said before we don't brain wash baby seals into bashing their own brains in or brain wash cows into slaughtering themselves where Reapers do. They mind rape people into serving them and killing their own. This makes them "evil".

They remove free will from the life they take and enslave. They pervert life, they don't do it for survival they do it because they can. They do it cause thats what they do. Melting members of a species down and turning them into a reaper thats ment to bring about the complete and total genocide of its own species let alone the entire galactic civilization is an extremly "evil"/morally wrong act. Mind raping in general is evil. And seeing how their entire civilization is not only capable BUT perfoms these acts as a whole that makes their race "evil".

By turning a species into a Reaper, They have created a LIFE. You and and your spouse will need to consume tonnes of living tissue (animal or otherwise) in order to live long enough to have and raise a baby. Do you deny the Reapers do what they do for reproduction? Even EDI suggests it is so... Since when is it "evil" to have a baby? Don't get me wrong: my Shepard will shoot to kill. He'll wipe the Reapers from the galaxy because there is no peaceful co-existence possible and he'll regret the necessity of it. He won't salve his conscience saying, "Oh they're just Evil..."

Many people loved Dragon Age:Origin because their was often no perfectly "good" or utterly "evil" answer to a problem. People may prefer clear-cut black and white and that's fine for High Fantasy but most people seem to prefer a story with a wider spectrum of gray tones...

Hence the interest in pursueing such a stimulating discussion! Is a whale "evil" for gobbling thousands of less evolved crustaceans in a single gulp to produce a baby whale? Would it be different if the krill could cry out "NOOOO!" before being dissolved in stomach acid? The whale has apparently no choice but to feed this way...

It's not the fact that their "reproducing"  thats evil, reproduction is part of nature so it can't be deemed good or evil. If you read what I wrote carefully what I'm saying is that the enslavement/mind rape/removing of ones will and natural instincts/forcing a species to commit genocide of its own species and others IS evil.

Also reproduction for survial is one thing but the reapers do not NEED to reproduce to survive all they need to do to live is go out into dark space and go to sleep. Also are the reapers truthfully alive? How do we define life? All life to my knowledge breathes in some shape or form, reproduces in some shape or form (in a way that does not directly require the complete destruction of another species), feeds in some shape or form, removes waste product from its self in some shape or form. And is organic.

The reapers however do not need/do/require any of this except ofcourse the complete and total destruction of all sentient organic life. They are machines with ARTIFICIAL inteligence they are made/manufactured not born.

and you shoud also read the rest of my post as it hits on the whole eating argument you made already.

[Kaorunandrak]

and yes dragon age rawks btw and my warden humps the morrigan she isnt evil just practical

[Flamewielder]

I kinda hope the writers are paying attention to this thread... I'd hate the Reapers to be just one-dimensional stock "evil" villains as opposed to complex tragic figures...



An interesting question is, how much of a Reaper's outlook on existence is dependent on the "personae" of the species used up in its creation? The humans biodigested on the Collector station were obviously not endoctrinated yet. Did they need to retain their mental faculties to be "ascended". Given that the youngest Reaper may have been created out of Protheans, it appears that perhaps only a couple of million humans may be required to create a Reaper. The rest being converted to endoctrinated slaves/husks, etc...



Reapers eliminate all sentient species (even the ones they don't use for reproduction) because they can't leave any witness behind, otherwise the survivors might track them down eventually and destroy them in their sleep... but what if some Reapers DID regret the necessary destruction of sentient species? No doubt they'd be in the minority, like North American vegans... opting to remain sterile to break the cycle... just a thought...

[Llandaryn]

Qario wrote...

However my point is that humanity might not have been given the chance to evolve if previous civilazations weren't extinguished. Mutiple scenarios could have taken place that could have hindered the evolution of mankind,

If, but, might, maybe.

I'm not willing to roll over for "what if".

[Svest]

I just wanted to point something out to those who say the reapers have stagnated and are not trying to grow or evolve in any way. If you logically think about what they are doing this doesn't seem to be the case. They are obviously searching for "new blood."



If all they were looking to do was reproduce they could very easily pick a compatible species and farm it like we do with cattle. They could get what they need in far greater quantities and with much greater reliability.



Instead they intentionally allow new species to develop and be harvested. Even at the risk of having a "bad crop" that they can't use (such as is believed to be the case with the protheans).

[Kaorunandrak]

Well they kinda do farm us like cattle in a way. They leave they're technology laying around so that way evolve technically down the pathways they want and desire. its kinda like building a farm with lush pastures of very specific types of grass letting the a few cows /bulls loose to eat and breed then coming back in a few years after the pasture has been eaten by the cows and then blowing them all away and haveing prime rib for dinner.

[cronshaw8]

Qario wrote...

cronshaw8 wrote...

the word "right" has no business in your post. "Rights" are entitlements that are assigned to members of a society based on moral codes; agreements; laws ect. Reapers are outside of any society. You might as well argue that Hurricane Katrina had the "right" to destroy New Orleans. Rights have nothing to do with a hurricane, hurricanes just are. If we could have stopped Hurricane Katrina we would have been morally obligated to do so. Just as Shepard is morally obligated to stop the Reapers. And the Reaper's sentience has nothing to do with it either. They have set themselves apart from and against every organic civilization and refuse to be judged/interpreted by those rules. So it is pointless to discuss their "rights"

Rights do have a role because as a species they are entitled to keep on existing, just as humans, turians, asari etc, they just happen to be in the position where the other part must be removed. Rights aren't just entitlements assigned to persons, it can be one persons or an entire race's right to exist because they worn born, and because you were born you're entitled to a life. Your argument about rights kinda arguing against United Nations declaration of human rights if I take it as an example, every person on this earth hasn't "earned" the right to live, they simply have the right to live.

You gotta see if from a reaper's point of view, if you were a reaper, and you've accapted that the most effective way to keep on existing is to extinguish organic life in the milky way in cycles, you have to right to keep existing. The only insanse thing here is that, that "right" consists of killing billions of people.

Human society attributes rights. They are "inherent" because we say they are. They don't have existence or meaning outside of human society. There are no "rights" in the wild. zebras do not have a right to live that they can exercise against an attacking lion. They flee and probably live, or fight and probably die. The reapers are outside any organic society. They have placed themselves there through their actions and words. They refuse to be bound by the same rules that govern organic societies (or even a synthetic society like the geth). So the concepts of those societies do not apply to them. They do not have rights as we understand them. This means that it is pointless to try to apply human/organic morals to interactions with the reapers. I'm not really sure what you are getting at. There is no possible scenario where the organic species in the Galaxy can feel morally wrong for trying to exterminate the reapers.

Modifié par cronshaw8, 02 mars 2010 - 10:37 .

[cronshaw8]

also to address your theory that if the reapers weren't around humanity might never have existed. That is irrelevant. Humanity does exist. We are under no obligation to self-exterminate so some potential future society can exist. Or to look at it another way. The reapers succeed because other civilizations failed. Previous galactic civilizations failure to exterminate the reapers shouldn't morally compel us to fail as well.

[Peer of the Empire]

I agree w/ OP

The Reapers must make the galaxy safe for humanity

[Flamewielder]

Kaorunandrak wrote...

It's not the fact that their "reproducing"  thats evil, reproduction is part of nature so it can't be deemed good or evil. If you read what I wrote carefully what I'm saying is that the enslavement/mind rape/removing of ones will and natural instincts/forcing a species to commit genocide of its own species and others IS evil.

Also reproduction for survial is one thing but the reapers do not NEED to reproduce to survive all they need to do to live is go out into dark space and go to sleep. Also are the reapers truthfully alive? How do we define life? All life to my knowledge breathes in some shape or form, reproduces in some shape or form (in a way that does not directly require the complete destruction of another species), feeds in some shape or form, removes waste product from its self in some shape or form. And is organic.

The reapers however do not need/do/require any of this except ofcourse the complete and total destruction of all sentient organic life. They are machines with ARTIFICIAL inteligence they are made/manufactured not born.

Spending an eternity asleep is NOT living... If Reapers did not feel the need to reproduce, they would not do so. The first Reaper would be the only one. The mere fact that there are many Reapers prove my point: they feel the drive to reproduce; and not by creating mere copies of the original. Each Reaper is a different collective entity, with some traits inherited from the species used in its creation. The most logical reason for this would be to introduce variety in the Reaper population, perhaps to provide "genetic diversity" of a sort.

Reapers were apparently only interested in humans, ignoring all other sentient races. It may be just a plot device used by Bioware to please their (mostly) human players but it puts the Reapers in an uncomfortable position: If they take away 20 million humans, won't the 20 trillion that remain come for their sorry hides?

What about the Turians? No love lost for Humans there... but I doubt they'd let the Reapers go home after something like that. Best to wipe out anybody that could remember they were there... Unfortunate, I know... But you can't create Reapers without breaking a few eggs... (and there I thought I was done with the food analogies)...

Also are the GETH truthfully alive? How do we define SENTIENT life? All life to my knowledge breathes (NO!) in some shape or form, reproduces in some shape or form (in a manufacturing plant?), feeds in some shape or form (NO!), removes waste product from its self in some shape or form(NO!). And is organic(NO!). We're talking sci-fi

Geth are definitely sentient, even if they are constructs. Reapers are definitely sentient and are bio-mechanical constructs. Reapers manage their evolution by selecting suitable species, like Asari select suitable mates from different species. Fortunately, the Asari mates enjoy mind-blowing sex with a seemingly forever young mate until they die of old age...  The sentient beings destroyed to create a new Reaper suffer an obviously less pleasant fate. We make a moral judgement of the Reaper they do not have the luxury to care about. Call them ruthless, heck, call them Renegades even... "Evil"? Please... 

[Esker02]

Flamewielder wrote...

We'll never know if the creators of the original Reaper ever intended to eventually force other races into a similar ascension. All we know is that that first Reaper eventually felt loneliness and attemped to create a "child". He may be absolutely and utterly convinced he's doing your species a favor by raising you to his immortal status. Does that make him "evil"? He explicitely refers to this process as an "ascension"... He's convinced he's doing your race a favor. Does he consider himself "evil"? I don't think so... Does he consider extinguishing your 150-year life as an individual as an insignificant price to pay for making your species immortal? Probably.

You already have a problem in that you're using humanity, in what is obviously an exceptional example, as your basis for Reaper activity. How do you defend all of the countless individuals and species that have died in FAILED attempts at this ascension (failures that would have been known right away. That is to say, it's not like everything is dead and only then do the Reapers realize they can't make another Reaper out of the now dead species - it would have been apparent early on that the "ascension" was impossible, but the slaughter still continued). Your hypothesis would have to be that they desire to do good (that is, ascend a race to a so-called but obviously not immortality) by murdering every race of sentient beings until eventually one comes along that can accept their "gift." I mean... that's not only logically inconsistent, but even if it was their intention, it's still evil insofar as there is no regard to the species that were unable to be mutilated into a Reaper construction.

Moreover, you also have to defend their repurposing of the Protheans along the same line of thought - even if we accept your TOTALLY optimistic viewpoint that their activity is merely an attempt to solve their loneliness (btw, something that is totally silly. If either Sovereign or Harbinger struck you as just needing a hug I question your judgment) you're still left with the fact that out of their selfish desire they're killing an untold amount of sentient lives and committing even worse horrors on others. If I want a teddy bear, but murder everybody who happens to be in my way en route to that teddy bear, did I act in an immoral manner? Of course I did. My means were not necessarily justified in connection with the ends, not matter how innocent or good those ends were - so even if you view the Reapers as wanting to do some kind of good for humanity, you still have to justify their means in getting there. Not just morally, but logically. Something that would be problematic at best, but by my judgment impossible.

I'm saying that "humane" behavior is based on arbitrary criteria. Humans treat fish and dolphins differently based upon ill-defined criteria that essentially comes down to "dolphins are closer to humans than fish", I'm not inventing this: just look around and you see it all the time... Do I, as a human, hold another human life important? Yes! I'm not wise enough to tell if my life is worth more than any another human life. Why should Reapers feel otherwise? They ARE sentient, by your own admission... Do Reapers hold another Reaper's existence in high regard? I'm sure they do. Do Reapers honestly believe they are doing the right thing by converting the human species into one of their own? I think so.

Again, no moral high ground to be had on EITHER side. It's a fight for survival, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm actually the first person in the room to declare that machines are not sentient. This is why I didn't touch your Quarian / Geth example - machines are simply not alive nor could they ever claim to be. They merely imitate life. Reapers, however, are something different than machines in their composition - their exact nature be they machine or organic has been complicated by the events of ME2, so I haven't formed an opinion on whether I would truly consider them to be alive or not. But, regardless, as I said before there is moral ground to be had when you see how conclusively the means are linked to the ends you're supposing. Reapers might believe they are doing the right thing by "ascending" humans, but I'm still waiting for you to make your case that they thought they were doing the right thing by MURDERING species after species, repurposing wholly sentient beings like the Protheans and potentially the Keepers, all in some insane psuedo-scientifical pursuit to one day, maybe, make another race like them.

Ah... but since this is science fiction: what if you offered your talking fish to grow him hand and legs so he could survive on land and cease to be a fish altogether, would the fish accept? He might be happier as a fish. You may want to do it because you feel he'll die from increasing levels of water pollution if he stays in the water. You may try to convince him. He may accept or refuse. Should the whole species refuse, would you decide to save them from their own stupidity, or let them die in their toxic sludge?

Whatever the Reaper's reasoning, they feel it is better to save you from yourselves rather than let your species die off. Wether they are right to believe so, we have no way of knowing. Labelling them as "evil" is too simple IMHO.

This analogy is actually an attempt to do what I asked of you above, but I don't see it. Were the Protheans in danger of dying of something analogous to increasing levels of water pollution? Are human beings, as a species? I don't see anything that would fit here. Once more I would like to put forward, let's say I could communicate with fish and I thought I had the opportunity to elevate them to my level of existence. Let's say I even deem it appropriate to go against their wishes and think I know what is truly best for them. But now, as was with the Protheans or any species before them, in my attempts to uplift them I discover the process is actually in vain - they're dying instead of "ascending." The responsible and good actor ceases activity. The irresponsible and evil actor continues to harvest and slaughter, blaming the test subject rather than the test.

I think we know which fits the Reapers... and I'm even granting you the controversial claim that forcing "ascension" on a species against their will isn't evil in and of itself.

You're assuming "evil" intentions on the part of the Reapers based on your human perspective.

Not at all. I'm purporting that Reapers are simply evil, based on every objective standard available to us for such a classification. It doesn't need to be a human being on the receiving end of Reaper justice for me to hate them all the same - I still hate them more for what they did to the Protheans than humanity. You can make the claim that ethical standards are all subjective, if you wish, and that ALL claims like good and evil aren't real. Nobody has ever truly been evil apart from in the eyes of somebody who, on a whim, happen to have criteria that labeled them as such, and that there is no true objective standard of good or evil. It all simply is.

But you can't have it both ways. If you want to make that claim, you then can't have pity on the Reapers because they think they're doing "good" (even IF I buy that for a second, which I don't), because you've already stripped reality of those claims. You simply have to view it as a basic, black and white scenario - they want to kill us and cannot be reasoned with, we must therefore kill them. One or the other. In one we die, in the other, they die. There's no regret, or hesitation, or even second thought to be had.

You can take one of two approaches. The Vigil approach "In the end, what does it matter? Your survival depends on stopping them, not in understanding them." or you can attempt to grasp their motives - which are at best selfish and irrational, and at worst totally evil. In either instance - they need to be stopped. They need to be killed. Without any remorse.

[Flamewielder]

cronshaw8 wrote...

Human society attributes rights. They are "inherent" because we say they are. They don't have existence or meaning outside of human society. There are no "rights" in the wild. zebras do not have a right to live that they can exercise against an attacking lion. They flee and probably live, or fight and probably die. The reapers are outside any organic society. They have placed themselves there through their actions and words. They refuse to be bound by the same rules that govern organic societies (or even a synthetic society like the geth). So the concepts of those societies do not apply to them. They do not have rights as we understand them. This means that it is pointless to try to apply human/organic morals to interactions with the reapers. I'm not really sure what you are getting at. There is no possible scenario where the organic species in the Galaxy can feel morally wrong for trying to exterminate the reapers.

I agree, but you made the point yourself: there is no "right" in the wild. The Reapers can chase the human, the human can be clever and win or dumb and get bio-mashed. No moral judgement there, just an observation. Is the Reaper "evil" for trying to bio-mash the human to create another being similar to itself? "Evil" is a moral judgement that is irrelevant to the Reaper's preoccupations. It doen't try to bio-mash because it is "evil".

I thought Legion's comments on the Old Machines are far more objective. You can agree that the Reaper's concept of directed evolution is superior (Order/Vorlon) or you can disaggree and you should let random mutation do its thing and enjoy the diversity that results (Chaos/Shadows). Yes, I know, before you flame me, the Shadows actively promoted chaos as an evolutionnary tool by inciting conflict/competition, but that is just speeding up natural processes... But there it is: Legion does not consider letting natural evolution work as "good", he just states he considers it "superior" to the alternative.

I, for one, am very glad I didn't sell such a remakable and insightful sentient being...

[Svest]

Kaorunandrak wrote...

Well they kinda do farm us like cattle in a way. They leave they're technology laying around so that way evolve technically down the pathways they want and desire. its kinda like building a farm with lush pastures of very specific types of grass letting the a few cows /bulls loose to eat and breed then coming back in a few years after the pasture has been eaten by the cows and then blowing them all away and haveing prime rib for dinner.

They do farm us in a way.  Not remotely like we farm cattle.  My point was they way they chose is incredibly inefficient and wasteful.  If all they wanted was more bodies to use to make more reaper soup there are far more effective ways to go about it.  They could even just grow organics in tanks on an industrial scale if that's all they wanted.  There are many ways they could ensure a much larger and much more reliable crop.

They are obviously looking for something new and different to add to "reaper society" (whatever that may be).  Which shows that they are not in fact stagnated, and are actually trying to grow and evolve. 

At least until they met Shepard. 

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

 Ah yes, "rights"....

[x75flames]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

I agree w/ OP

The Reapers must make the galaxy safe for humanity

WTF, its safer that they are trying to kill us all off?

[The Angry One]

x75flames wrote...

Peer of the Empire wrote...

I agree w/ OP

The Reapers must make the galaxy safe for humanity

WTF, its safer that they are trying to kill us all off?

Quick, shoot him! He's indoctrinated too!

There's an indoctrinator signal in this topic! Everybody run for your lives!

[Kaorunandrak]

The geth are not sentient they are simply aware. Nothing will ever change the fact they are machines that are manufactured and constructed. Originally by the quarians and later by themselves something thats constructed wether its SCI-FI or not cannot live. (unless we're in the transformers universe where there is a robot cube god that makes robot babies.)



the reapers are the same as the geth the only difference is they use flesh paste in theyre costruction. If you tore out the heart and brain of a person and put it into your computer and wrote a program that based off that persons personality and it interacted with you based on its program would you call that a living computer simply because it has fleshy parts as well?



The Reapers are rogue AI with a star ship as a body and nothing more. They have no feelings and operate on logic and programing alone. They make more of themselves IMO simply to be more efficient in theyre killing or simply to replace that which was lost. Based off of what we saw with them making a human reaper most assumed Soverign was a Prothean reaper. But in the ending scene I dont know about you but all I saw was robosquids no other different design but robosquids.



And if all there is is robosquids then there goes the "genetic diversity" theory.(I'm not saying I'm right only basing this on what I have seen and read personally)

whomever created them originally dropped the ball and is responsible for the genocide of countless beings.



And MIND-RAPE is evil period lol

[GnusmasTHX]

As a fully conscious, sentient being, I have the right to protest my extermination.

[Flamewielder]

Esker02 wrote...

You can take one of two approaches. The Vigil approach "In the end, what does it matter? Your survival depends on stopping them, not in understanding them."

I guess the point I'm trying to get accross is that, as I do not feel hatred towards the ants I have to destroy or the cattle I need to slaugther, I cannot expect the Reapers to hate the races they destroy out of necessity. As I stated on a previous post, Reapers have no choice but to exterminate unharvested sentients before they get a chance to retalliate. Harvest the best, exterminate the rest. Cold? Absolutely! Renagade? Definitely! Callous? I agree! Do I agree with Vigil's (and the Protheans) assessment of the situation? 100%! The Protheans' (and Shepard's) sole preoccupation is stopping the Reapers, not understanding them. To label them "evil" is to claim understanding their motives, which we simply don't.

I'm not saying they should be allowed to continue their cycle. I agree with the Proteans that it is slaughter on a monstrous scale. Does Shepard hate them? He's clearly revolted by the horror of it; heck, my Shepard blew up the Collector base because he figured whatever horrific technology the Reapers left in it would bite Humanity in the nether parts... Can you call "evil" a being who is a consummate pragmatic? Whatever reason the Reapers have to reproduce, be it companionship, a desire to diversify to increase their survival chances as a species, an unlikely and alien desire to "elevate" young species to their "ascended" stage or actively pursuing what they consider the apex of their evolution, bottom line is: they reproduce. Their extermination of unselected sentient races is a matter of survival. Hatred has no meaning in their complex minds, nor relevance.

To consider them "evil" is to state that they do "evil" deeds for the simple sick joy of it. I doubt that's how they see it... They do what they do because it makes cold logical sense from their perspective.

Now the extermination of humans by humans, THAT I have no trouble describing as evil. Inflicting pain and suffering on your peers is evil. Why do I say this? Because humans, sharing more or less the same intelligence, should have the same understanding of the proprieties of living in society. To willingly go against accepted behavior to exploit/hurt a peer is what I consider evil. I just don't think Reapers and the ME3 species (including the Geth) have enough in common to share a common set of moral values.

I hope you're enjoying this discussion as much as I am... very stimulating!