ME3 - You can't debate Star Child because you have a valid logical point.

[Nieroshai]

Philosophy and mathematics aren't even on the same field. The stargazer asserts that, in its observation of the universe, organics have always created synthetics to be slaves, and when the synthetics became self-aware they rebelled against being treated like farming equipment. Noting this pattern (and by conjecture having participated in the pattern in its own original galactic cycle) it sought to end abuse of synthetics by not allowing a race of organics to cause another cycle of genuine near-extinction of not just space-faring sentience but life itself. Simply put, this argument can be narrowed to good ol' D&D alignmments. A Lawful Good god will presumably be more than willing to sacrifice some life if it means preventing utter extinction; doing the most good in the most orderly and calculating manner. Basically, if unleashing the Borg would allow the god to prevent a Skynet incident on a galactic scale, it's a tally of which outcome would be the least unfavorable and to enact it. Remember this, and you may not have found this in ME1 unless you did a lot of exploring: the Prothean datasphere you can find shows you that humanity was in the stone age when the Protheans still existed. Therefore humans weren't a threat. Assuming what the stargazer says, that would mean humanity would never be a candidate for destruction as long as they weren't a space-faring civilization capable of producing sentient AI. It is using the mass relays which dooms a culture, not being sentient. While the stargazer is biased by being an AI and sympathizing with oppressed synthetics, it is understandable that it reached the conclusion it did. The Reapers and stargazer are what the Geth could become, I thought the parallel was clear.

 

[Paragon Fury]

However, it hinges completely on the idea the D (synthetics destroy organics) is true - something for which there is no evidence of, anywhere, making it an untrue argument.

So, basically, all the Star Child then has to do is relate an incident where organically-created synthetic lifeforms ALMOST managed to wipe out all organic life, and your idea falls flat right then and there.

Nope.

All that would is elevate the Starchild from "Your logic is fucking broken" to, at best, "We have a logical deadlock now". In which case, Shepard's logic of C>~D would be the mathematically smarter and more logical option to follow, because it creates more possible positive outcomes than Starchild's C>D logic.

Also, the Reapers do not count for the C*D part of the argument; they're a self-fulfilling prophecy (a logical fallacy) and therefore can't be used as proof of truth of D.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

In each case you should be able to tell the Star-Child to shove it. Taking away any ability to ask questions and argue with the Star-Child was either a deliberate attempt to show Shepard was in a altered state (i.e: indoctrinated dream-state) or sheer laziness and averision on behalf of the writer.

Because it's easy to change the mind of someone who's been set in their logic for a long time, right? Because it's not like the Reapers have had 37 million years of being set in their own logic.

The lynchpin, the main sticking point, is D, the destruction of all organic life at the hands of a race of synthetic life forms. The Reapers believe it will happen, that it is only a matter of time before it happens, and there is no chance that it won't eventually happen.

What evidence can Shepard provide to the alternative? Yes, in many cases, Shepard can show that D isn't currently 1, that it isn't anywhere close to 1, but he's unable to definitely prove that D will NEVER equal 1.

In the entire 37 million year history of the Reapers, D has NEVER been 1, so "logically", what they're doing is working, so what reason would they have for stopping a winning strategy? If your workplace has been "Accident Free for: '37 Million Years'", you do NOT want to be the supervisor when things go bad.

The problem with that though is that you assume that the Reapers actually give Organics a chance to work things out, they didnt let the Protheans settle their own affairs with Synthetics, now did they let the Quarians. The Reapers are so convinced that they are right that they refuse to look for signs of change

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

In each case you should be able to tell the Star-Child to shove it. Taking away any ability to ask questions and argue with the Star-Child was either a deliberate attempt to show Shepard was in a altered state (i.e: indoctrinated dream-state) or sheer laziness and averision on behalf of the writer.

Because it's easy to change the mind of someone who's been set in their logic for a long time, right? Because it's not like the Reapers have had 37 million years of being set in their own logic.

The lynchpin, the main sticking point, is D, the destruction of all organic life at the hands of a race of synthetic life forms. The Reapers believe it will happen, that it is only a matter of time before it happens, and there is no chance that it won't eventually happen.

What evidence can Shepard provide to the alternative? Yes, in many cases, Shepard can show that D isn't currently 1, that it isn't anywhere close to 1, but he's unable to definitely prove that D will NEVER equal 1.

In the entire 37 million year history of the Reapers, D has NEVER been 1, so "logically", what they're doing is working, so what reason would they have for stopping a winning strategy? If your workplace has been "Accident Free for: '37 Million Years'", you do NOT want to be the supervisor when things go bad.

The problem with that though is that you assume that the Reapers actually give Organics a chance to work things out, they didnt let the Protheans settle their own affairs with Synthetics, now did they let the Quarians. The Reapers are so convinced that they are right that they refuse to look for signs of change

But it's been working out well so far. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Oh yes because mass genocide is clearly the answer

I could cut off my fingers because otherwise my nails will keep growing, therefor i will need to cut them occasionally. Or I could just cut my nails instead of resorting to extremes

 

[Neaco]

you sir, have unlocked the reaper thought process.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I was hoping for a Renegade Interrupt where Shepard says "I'm tired of your disingenuous assertions." and punches the Star Child out.

I still wonder why they decided to make it a child, of all things.

I mean, come on. Children piss me off in day to day life, I dont need another little shit ruining my day.

Starchild, get fucked with a rake.

It really shouldn't have been a kid

I always imagined some dude in white robes, glowing, with his head held up slightly in a totally smug manner looking down at the wounded Shepard with an expression like Shepard was so insignificant that he wasn't even worth his time, and hundreds if not thousands of holographic screens in the background showing synthetics totally destroying organic civilizations across time.

Make his eyes look uber weird also, like it is starting into your soul, that would make him look badass, and all the screens in the background would give some credence to his motives.

They made him take the form of a child because they couldn't make him resemble the Architect from The Matrix. It would have been too obvious. It's still too obvious but I guess they didn't count on the fact that their fanbase has some brains.

 

[T3hSource]

TL;DR - Poorly thought out ending is poorly thought out, and Starchild can go pucker himself with some good old fashioned logic.

Phahaha,I love how you just made your entire post useless with just that one sentence.
You can still shoot the star child afterwards,wish there was any effect in doing so.

 

[SoMuchSpace]

All of this could be solved by punching the star child to death.But oh i can see it now "Bioware gave the option to hit/kill a child in a game.Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo"

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

In the entire 37 million year history of the Reapers, D has NEVER been 1, so "logically", what they're doing is working, so what reason would they have for stopping a winning strategy? If your workplace has been "Accident Free for: '37 Million Years'", you do NOT want to be the supervisor when things go bad.

Though, if your definition of "accident" is "synthetic life forms committing mass genocide against organics" and you don't reset the counter at that part where the synthetics you created commit mass genocide against organics, then someone in Quality Control might want to have a word with ya.

No, my definition of "accident" is "complete annihilation of every single organic being, both single- and multi-celled, across the entire reaches of the galaxy".

But see, that's never going to happen. Ever. It's extremely close to impossible, even if a synthetic race that wanted to do it were to spring up.

Do you really think that any synthetic life form is going to wage war against bacteria on EVERY planet and moon and starship in the galaxy, filling the seas and caves and bowels of every planet in the galaxy with a specially designed, constantly updated formula of antibiotic poison with microscopes stapled to their faces? Oh, and be constantly bathing themselves in the stuff, too, because life can live in their cracks and crevices too, spreading across the galaxy with them. Because that's what it would take to get rid of literally all life everywhere, that and no less. A complete and total devotion, across centuries, to destroy life forms invisible to the naked eye, forever vigilant because you would never be able to be sure (After all, even the Reapers missed a Prothean or two, and they're a LOT bigger and easier to spot).

Between that and Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, it's all a sliding scale of genocide... a sliding scale where the Reapers have selected a spot... oh, about 3/4 of the way towards total genocide? They kill men, but spare monkeys... until the next cycle, when they'll be the new men. Give them long enough and they'll kill everything evolution comes up with, they just do it piece by piece in a sort of Zeno's Paradox approach towards killing/absorbing everything that ever was. Once it's ripe, if you follow me.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Even Science hates ME3's ending!
...
...
...
...
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[OldNewNewOld]

The Star Child actually has a proof of how the created will destroy the creator. And it's even in the same current cycle.
The Geth.

Remember what Legion said when you saved him? They gave up on organics. They were ready to kill all organics in order to save them self.
That is proof enough.

If there were no Reaper, the Geth would have been fighting to the very end. Who would win is questionable, but what is sure is that the created were ready for a war till the end.

The problem with this is that people ask "why would the synthetics do that?". But that's not the question. There is no question.
It's not the Synthetics who would start a war, it's the organics. And if they lose their people over and over again in wars against Organics, the logical thing is to try and solve the problem from the root. The root is the existence of organics. Destroy the root, your problem is solved.
The organics would force the synthetics into a genocide.

And even if for some unknown reason Organics don't make any synthetics after the first weave which they have beaten, the same organics will come to a point where they will be bored and start shooting everything that moves. Even in our time people kill animals for fun. Even now we have 1000's of nuclear weapons which WILL destroy life on earth if used. Organics are ready to destroy everything if they can't have it. Remember that bully in school who destroys your toys because he can't have them? Well, that's us. Organics.
I'm not saying that every organic is so, in fact, most aren't. But just 1 idiot is enough do start WW3 in our world, or GW XY in the ME universe.

And remember what Legion said in ME2. The heretics aren't wrong. Their logic isn't falls, neither is the logic of the Geth. Jet they are opposite. They are looking at it from different angles.

 

[Pscyon]

They made him take the form of a child because they couldn't make him resemble the Architect from The Matrix. It would have been too obvious. It's still too obvious but I guess they didn't count on the fact that their fanbase has some brains.

Hadn't seen anyone else make the Architect comparison yet, thought I was the only one bothered by it, heh. It was stupid when they did it in The Matrix and it was stupid in Mass Effect.

What bothers me more than ghost boy is that unless the "control" ending is considered the canonical one, a nice IP is totally wrecked now. I was hoping since Bioware said in the past that "Shepard's story" would be a trilogy that maybe we could now get new games in the Mass Effect universe when done with him/her. A more standard RPG which we saw they were still able to do with Dragon Age: Origins, letting us pick background/species/class and have more than 3 dialogue choices would have been nice. Guess not.

 

[Condiments]

Another god damn science fiction story ends with the ye old "MACHINES AND ORGANIC LIFE CAN NEVER CO-EXIST, THEREFORE MASS GENOCIDE!", while bringing absolutely nothing new to the table to ponder about.

 

[chadachada123]

In each case you should be able to tell the Star-Child to shove it. Taking away any ability to ask questions and argue with the Star-Child was either a deliberate attempt to show Shepard was in a altered state (i.e: indoctrinated dream-state) or sheer laziness and averision on behalf of the writer.

Because it's easy to change the mind of someone who's been set in their logic for a long time, right? Because it's not like the Reapers have had 37 million years of being set in their own logic.

The lynchpin, the main sticking point, is D, the destruction of all organic life at the hands of a race of synthetic life forms. The Reapers believe it will happen, that it is only a matter of time before it happens, and there is no chance that it won't eventually happen.

What evidence can Shepard provide to the alternative? Yes, in many cases, Shepard can show that D isn't currently 1, that it isn't anywhere close to 1, but he's unable to definitely prove that D will NEVER equal 1.

In the entire 37 million year history of the Reapers, D has NEVER been 1, so "logically", what they're doing is working, so what reason would they have for stopping a winning strategy? If your workplace has been "Accident Free for: '37 Million Years'", you do NOT want to be the supervisor when things go bad.

In the same sense that my lion-deterring whistle works as long as I keep ringing it for several hours every Saturday at 4AM, right?

 

[crudus]

TL;DR - Poorly thought out ending is poorly thought out, and Starchild can go pucker himself with some good old fashioned logic.

Except Starchild's logic was more along the lines of "we hurt you to protect you". Although quick question: how much evidence do you need before you personally accept that he at least has a point? It all sorts of happened in this cycle 200 years prior to Shepard. That seems to be all it took for the council to see his logic and ban AIs altogether. Before you counter with EDI, I will be sure to tell you that even bacteria knows to attack your body in sufficient numbers. Also, EDI as a VI malfunctioned on Luna and started killing people.

TL;DR: I am beginning to think I am the only one who liked the ending. Oddly enough what people liked about it, I didn't like.