The Indoctrination Theory and Refuse

To call me hypocritical is quite fresh considering you're declaring Refuse as the only ending that can't result in indoctrination.

And you don't have to be a pure renegade to make the decisions I listed above. As much as Krogan are great ground troops, they have to borrow ships from other races, as opposed to the Salarians who have advanced weapons fleets and intel, in a war against starship sized, hyper-advanced machines that have harvested civilsations for many millenia. Having Salarian support would actually be quite pragmatic in this case. Also, in a situation where Shepard has to choose between the Geth and the Quarians (which was a position many people were left in), it stands to reason that some people would have chosen the Quarians as they may be wary of the fact the Geth want to load themselves up with Reaper code and had been deceptive on a number of occasions (but that isn't a debate I want to start as of now).

The only reason we see a default N7 armour, is because it's a pre-rendered cutscene.

The only reason we see a pre-rendered cutscene, is because they don't want us to flycam the scene to figure out where it takes place.

Restrider wrote:@ Davik Kang What option would you add to the poll then?

Only just saw this, I don't think you can add an option really, cos each option involves Shepard being stuck in a dream fighting indoctrination, and only that. For me I don't think Refuse results in indoctrination, nor do I think there's any fighting left to do, because Shep gives up, the Crucible doesn't do anything, and everyone dies.

I wasn't asking for anything, just commented so you'd know I checked out the poll and explained why I didn't vote.

@AxStapleton: I didn't mean to offend, it happens, I've been hypocritical but only when I don't realize it. My point was, you can't complain about such a thing when you do the same thing. So now that you are aware of it, you can't complain.

Actually, if you listened... as I said it's also irrational. For example, you get Salarian support anyways. So that justification is invalid hence why it's irrational. Every reasoning I've ever heard, except mistrusting the Krogan all together, is invalid. But of course mistrust wouldn't be pragmatic here, because the Krogan are powerful regardless of trust later down the road.

In the end there ultimately has to be a limit to the cost, death is preferable to submission. Extinction should take place before we sacrifice freedom. By Murdering the Geth you sacrifice their lives, their freedom, and their hope. If you can sacrifice all of these things, there is nothing left to sacrifice so if there is a line to be drawn... you have surely past it. This is what's wrong with Synthesis and control, you sacrifice too much.

You also haven't refuted this: If you'd be willing to do ANYTHING, that includes Synthesis. There has to be a canon resolve otherwise Synthesis can be the way out for some Shepards, but we know this is not the case because Synthesis IS an indoctrination ending. So you know what that means? It means Shepard's current resolve believes there is a limit to sacrifice, no matter what. Regardless of Paragon or Renegade, Shepard DOES voice self-determinism. Shepard doesn't believe he has the right to control innocent people, that includes their right to life. He can be pragmatic but he isn't irrational, he isn't evil and he isn't unjust.

@DD: Correlation=/=Causation. They could have made a per-rendered video for each armor set, it wouldn't be that hard to do actually. Now maybe it was rushed, but that would mean the Reveal would have to replace both the armor during gameplay when Shepard gets hit by Harbinger, and the cutscene.

Davik Kang wrote:

Restrider wrote:@ Davik Kang What option would you add to the poll then?

Only just saw this, I don't think you can add an option really, cos each option involves Shepard being stuck in a dream fighting indoctrination, and only that. For me I don't think Refuse results in indoctrination, nor do I think there's any fighting left to do, because Shep gives up, the Crucible doesn't do anything, and everyone dies.

I wasn't asking for anything, just commented so you'd know I checked out the poll and explained why I didn't vote.

No problem at all, I was just curious.
Of course this thread and the poll is about Refuse in the light of (classic) IT, saying that there is the hallucinatory/dream state and Shepard is somewhere on Earth.

Your interpretation is a more literal approach that shares a lot of traits with TTG's Deception Theory (we have it featured even on this board), if I recall correct?
In such an interpretation Refuse would most likely be what we actually see in the game and the discussion would then be about the question whether extinction is preferable to submission or not.

Destroying the Reapers seems to be what Shepard would do, this is why I still support Destroy. My main conflict is with the sacrifice, Shepard would only sacrifice so much when it's a necessity as far as I can tell, and Refuse would be the perfect scapegoat for people pissed off about making the wrong choice because it means everyone was wrong the first time... rather than just some people.

I believe Bioware punishes bad choices, but at the same time they don't torture people who aren't used to a series like this, they wouldn't hold hands but they will try to push you in the right direction. ME2 you had to actually try to suck, so they definitely didn't make failure easy lol

Destroy is pretty severe for simply killing your enemy, why can't they just blow up? The sacrifices should be the people dying as they fight, like when a ship gets blown up among the forces around earth. Sacrificing the Geth and EDI just seems so severe for such a thing, it doesn't sound like an inevitable cost. Basically it feels like the Reapers are holding them hostage, and you shoot through the hostages to get to the bad guy rather than the innocent victims actually being casualties.

IronicParticle wrote:@DD: Correlation=/=Causation. They could have made a per-rendered video for each armor set, it wouldn't be that hard to do actually.

You've got to be kidding.

That would be impossible.

All the different combinations of pieces of armour is quite staggering. There are somewhere around 15 pieces of head gear alone, which you can combine with 7 or 8 different sets of shoulder pieces, chest pieces, arm pieces, leg pieces. Combine that with 5 different kinds of materials, 3 different kinds of patterns with a host of colour variations and the 2 different sets of tints for the rest of the armour, as well as a set of colours for lights and you are talking about thousands and thousands of different combinations, times two - for male and female.

If you had to make pre-rendered cutscenes for all of that, the amount of disc space you needed would be immeasurable.

Oh and then they'd also have to add a pre-rendered breath scene for every custom armour you acquired with post-release DLC.

IronicParticle wrote:Destroying the Reapers seems to be what Shepard would do, this is why I still support Destroy. My main conflict is with the sacrifice, Shepard would only sacrifice so much when it's a necessity as far as I can tell, and Refuse would be the perfect scapegoat for people pissed off about making the wrong choice because it means everyone was wrong the first time... rather than just some people.

I believe Bioware punishes bad choices, but at the same time they don't torture people who aren't used to a series like this, they wouldn't hold hands but they will try to push you in the right direction. ME2 you had to actually try to suck, so they definitely didn't make failure easy lol

Destroy is pretty severe for simply killing your enemy, why can't they just blow up? The sacrifices should be the people dying as they fight, like when a ship gets blown up among the forces around earth. Sacrificing the Geth and EDI just seems so severe for such a thing, it doesn't sound like an inevitable cost. Basically it feels like the Reapers are holding them hostage, and you shoot through the hostages to get to the bad guy rather than the innocent victims actually being casualties.

What the cost is or how big of a cost it is isn't the point. The lesson is that there is no cost too great.

BleedingUranium wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:Destroying the Reapers seems to be what Shepard would do, this is why I still support Destroy. My main conflict is with the sacrifice, Shepard would only sacrifice so much when it's a necessity as far as I can tell, and Refuse would be the perfect scapegoat for people pissed off about making the wrong choice because it means everyone was wrong the first time... rather than just some people.

I believe Bioware punishes bad choices, but at the same time they don't torture people who aren't used to a series like this, they wouldn't hold hands but they will try to push you in the right direction. ME2 you had to actually try to suck, so they definitely didn't make failure easy lol

Destroy is pretty severe for simply killing your enemy, why can't they just blow up? The sacrifices should be the people dying as they fight, like when a ship gets blown up among the forces around earth. Sacrificing the Geth and EDI just seems so severe for such a thing, it doesn't sound like an inevitable cost. Basically it feels like the Reapers are holding them hostage, and you shoot through the hostages to get to the bad guy rather than the innocent victims actually being casualties.

What the cost is or how big of a cost it is isn't the point. The lesson is that there is no cost too great.

Not to mention both EDI and the Geth state that they are willing to die to destroy the Reapers.

@DD: Actually, if you pay attention to the burned armor, the only thing they need to make unique is the chest. But regardles pre-rendered cutscenes should not be that large. In fact Bioware is one of the few game companies I know of whos compression has artifacts in it. If the quality is that degraded when it's 720p then it definitely can't be that large. Unless bioware sucks balls at compressing videos, but that'd be practically impossible when you hire individuals who know their stuff.

All that aside, they are not allowed to be lazy, and if that isn't plot related then it is laziness.

@Bleeding: "The lesson is that there is no cost too great." So synthesis is acceptable? See the problem here is, is that is not true. There are too great of costs, what the hell do you think is wrong with Synthesis and Control in the first place? Freedom, Life and Hope are all that matter, so actually they are too great of costs because they are why we fight. You can't sacrifice your purpose for doing it in the first place, otherwise it's self defeating.

Plus the sacrifice DOES have to scale to the goal, otherwise it's completely fine to murder a dozen babies just so you can have some candy. Basically, JUSTIFICATION! The sacrifice has to scale to the benefit, so that way the good outweighs the bad aka the benefits outweigh the sacrifice.

@Selim Bradley: But only if they HAVE to, while Synthesis and Control are out of the question as far as they are concerned... HOW you destroy the Reapers is a whole other thing. Because Destroy is saying they will die, and Refuse is saying they don't have to die even though we still destroy the Reapers. They would most definitely choose to destroy the Reapers and LIVE at the same time if they could, in all reality you do not have their consent to destroy them out of a lack of necessity.

IronicParticle wrote:
@Selim Bradley: But only if they HAVE to, while Synthesis and Control are out of the question as far as they are concerned... HOW you destroy the Reapers is a whole other thing. Because Destroy is saying they will die, and Refuse is saying they don't have to die even though we still destroy the Reapers. They would most definitely choose to destroy the Reapers and LIVE at the same time if they could, in all reality you do not have their consent to destroy them out of a lack of necessity.

If the endings are literal, they do HAVE to. In Refuse, they die in vain. In Destroy, at least the die and bring the Reapers with them. They do not have the option to kill the Reapers and live, so they make a new decision and would logically choose destroy the Reapers at any cost.

Selim Bradley wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:
@Selim Bradley: But only if they HAVE to, while Synthesis and Control are out of the question as far as they are concerned... HOW you destroy the Reapers is a whole other thing. Because Destroy is saying they will die, and Refuse is saying they don't have to die even though we still destroy the Reapers. They would most definitely choose to destroy the Reapers and LIVE at the same time if they could, in all reality you do not have their consent to destroy them out of a lack of necessity.

If the endings are literal, they do HAVE to. In Refuse, they die in vain. In Destroy, at least the die and bring the Reapers with them. They do not have the option to kill the Reapers and live, so they make a new decision and would logically choose destroy the Reapers at any cost.

The ending's aren't literal, you cannot be on this forum and think it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, not without having your blinders on. The endings have been beyond proven to be an indoctrination attempt, even IF there will be no reveal.

From a literal perspective, they don't die in vain. The Reapers fall because of our actions in our cycle in Refuse. Destroy sacrifices the Lives, the Freedom and the Hope of the Geth. Which are the only things that matter, so if a few die and we sacrifice the most important things, just so others can live... Then we have done the wrong thing. The right thing is for everyone to die, but for the sake of keeping what is most important. Just like slaves risk their lives by rebelling, freedom is more valuable than life itself. Die free, or live submissive, Shepard has already voiced which one he'd pick >.>

IronicParticle wrote:

Selim Bradley wrote:

IronicParticle wrote:
@Selim Bradley: But only if they HAVE to, while Synthesis and Control are out of the question as far as they are concerned... HOW you destroy the Reapers is a whole other thing. Because Destroy is saying they will die, and Refuse is saying they don't have to die even though we still destroy the Reapers. They would most definitely choose to destroy the Reapers and LIVE at the same time if they could, in all reality you do not have their consent to destroy them out of a lack of necessity.

If the endings are literal, they do HAVE to. In Refuse, they die in vain. In Destroy, at least the die and bring the Reapers with them. They do not have the option to kill the Reapers and live, so they make a new decision and would logically choose destroy the Reapers at any cost.

The ending's aren't literal, you cannot be on this forum and think it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, not without having your blinders on. The endings have been beyond proven to be an indoctrination attempt, even IF there will be no reveal.

From a literal perspective, they don't die in vain. The Reapers fall because of our actions in our cycle in Refuse. Destroy sacrifices the Lives, the Freedom and the Hope of the Geth. Which are the only things that matter, so if a few die and we sacrifice the most important things, just so others can live... Then we have done the wrong thing. The right thing is for everyone to die, but for the sake of keeping what is most important. Just like slaves risk their lives by rebelling, freedom is more valuable than life itself. Die free, or live submissive, Shepard has already voiced which one he'd pick >.>

You assume choosing Destroy in the hallucination will destroy the Geth in reality, which isn't so. Choosing Refuse is Shepard killing off everyone due to lack of resolve. Shepard doesn't know that the next cycle defeats the Reapers, since we only learn that in the epilogue. For all shepard knows the Reapers will continue to reap for all eternity. To use your slaves rebelling analogy, let's say the slave rebellion leader encounters the head slaver. The head slaver offers him a choice: you can kill me, but some of your slaves will die or you can do nothing and let us kill all of you. The slave rebellion leader will choose the former, even if it doesn't sit well with them because at least everyone else lives free.

refuse is Bioware's middle-finger to the fanbase plain and simple.

richie21 wrote: refuse is Bioware's middle-finger to the fanbase plain and simple.

"OH, so you don´t like our art? Well you die if you don´t use it, so yeah"

Selim Bradley wrote:
You assume choosing Destroy in the hallucination will destroy the Geth in reality, which isn't so.

No; He's "accusing" YOU of assuming that.

Most of what I've seen of people arguing Destroy over Refuse, depends entirely on Shepard believing the scenario, believing in the kid's presentation of the options, and from that, out-of-game, drawing conclusions as to what the options represent, in the metaphorical form, of Shepard's resolve.
(EDIT2: ...and before the addition of Refuse, that leap of logic was necessary to give us a way out of the indoctrination push, which is the only reason I still consider Destroy as breaking indoctrination - legacy reason. For my part, I always found the Destroy=Resist metaphor seriously iffy, so I had an easier time than others, in parting with it, when a better one was given.)

Refusing players (...and Ironic is actually a destroyer) tend to think of their Shepards as rather a bit more critical thinking.

Selim Bradley wrote:
Choosing Refuse is Shepard killing off everyone due to lack of resolve. Shepard doesn't know that the next cycle defeats the Reapers, since we only learn that in the epilogue. For all shepard knows the Reapers will continue to reap for all eternity. To use your slaves rebelling analogy, let's say the slave rebellion leader encounters the head slaver. The head slaver offers him a choice: you can kill me, but some of your slaves will die or you can do nothing and let us kill all of you. The slave rebellion leader will choose the former, even if it doesn't sit well with them because at least everyone else lives free.

Refuse is the former choice in your slave rebellion example - slaves will die (EDIT3: maybe ALL of us, maybe...), in fighting the well-armed, better positioned, slavers -- but: die fighting (...and trying to find new ways to do so: raiding the slavers' armory, perhaps, or constructing traps...).

Destroy is more like you have the slavers inside a building, along with all the slaves of a certain ethnicity, and you make a split second decision to block the exits and set the building on fire. (trusting the head slaver when he says all exits are properly blocked and that the stick he just handed you is actually a magical wand: fireball +11.

EDIT: In any case; To a concussed mind, the step is not very long, from: "It is an unfortunate sacrifice, that the nature of our weapon means our synthetics have to die along with the enemy", to what the reapers try to sell you: "It is unfortunate that the nature of our relationship means ALL synthetics will ALWAYS rebel against their creators - they have to die/be_controlled/integrated_with_organics - they are the enemy."

(Damn, couldn't shut up... Gotta keep post count down, though; quite dig the old pod crab lads - they kind of remind me of the Quabs from URU. :)

@Selim: You need to make that more accurate.

The head slaver offers him a choice:

Destroy Equivalent: You can kill me with this special weapon, but some of your slaves will die because it will also target some of them but the rest will live.

or

Refuse Equivalent: You can try and destroy us without using the special weapon, but you will all die.

The slave rebellion leader will choose the latter, through their hardships the slaves know each other better than anyone else. Their family to each other by now, they gave each other a reason to live in the first place and they all now found something more important than life itself, so it'd be utterly pointless to live without them in the first place.

Resolve is your most core values, what is most important to you. To Saren, life was most important... that's why he picked Synthesis. This resolve led him to corruption because it's misguided. Life means nothing without quality, and hope and freedom are crucial building blocks for a quality of life. He'd be willing to do synthesis, sacrificing freedom and hope if it means everybody lives.

Consider life meaningless for all intents and purposes. Hope and Freedom contain all the meaning and value, their what gives life meaning and value in the first place. So by sacrficing freedom and hope, you give up the only things that actually have value and meaning. As oposed to life, which is meaningless for all intents and purposes. I mean life has value, but that's only because it grants the opportunities of freedom and hope in the first place.

You sacrifice lives, freedom and hope, so a few other lives can keep on living.

But let me ask you a question: If Synthesis actually worked, then why would you be against it? Lets say in a crazy what if world, Synthesis really did save everyone and achieved eternal peace without any consequences. Wouldn't you be inclined to pick it, heck wouldn't Shepard?

If you truly believe Destroy is right for the reasons you say you do. Then that means to you a legit Synthesis would be the most right. Destroy sacrifices lives, freedom and hope, so a few other lives keep on living. So the more extreme version of that, is to sacrifice freedom and hope entirely in order to save everyone.

As jonjon2se said, I'm a destroyer for all intents and purposes. I believe when Shepard wakes up, he will end up destroying the Reapers even if Refuse is the best way out. There might be a chance to choose a valid Control, however I personally believe that would be wrong. It'd likely be a severely Renegade choice. Anyways point is I will destroy the Reapers when we get out of the hallucination.

It's also why I am still stuck on Destroy. I'm just trying to think what Shepard would do, if he would pick the option that sacrifices everything important... then that's what he'd pick regardless of how I feel about it. It does involve destroying the Reapers, so it depends on whether that is higher priority to him or not.

I personally would think a human being should be more moral than that, it's in our instinct to prefer life. But we are not wild animals anymore, we can finally choose what brings meaning to our lives, we can decide what our purpose is. What is truly important? Is it to live? Death is inevitable for the time being, even if immortality was achievable... you can't live your life expecting to live forever. You MUST accept your death can and will come at any moment, and there is no difference between dying sooner rather than later.

I think they'll make a valid Control, but it'll be fucked up.

It'll be Synthesis that will be the truly horrific stuff, if IT is revealed.

I would not say a few keeps on living in Destroy. You sacrifice the few for the many, that is really the definition of the choice. Also it does not sacrifice all freedom and hope, it only does so for the ones you sacrificed, the Geth.

Not that it really makes it much easier. I am torn on Destroy and Refuse, seeing things for and against both.

However I would pick Destroy over Synthesis even if I perceived no deception was involved. I would because I value diversity, free will, the hope of the many over the sacrifice of the few. Taking away free will, changing someone against their consent is to me the same as killing them so the litteral choice between Synthesis and Destroy for me is the death of the few or the death of all.

The fact that the Reapers die also factor in though. There is no certainty peace will last in Synthesis beyond the Catalyst words and the Reapers might start the cycle again. I wont inflict that possibility on future cycles.

Then came Refuse with the EC.

I am...uncertain of it on a purely IT level of speculation.

On one hand we got Shepard speaking against the Catalyst, standing up and saying no. It is nice, it is heroic, but it is what follows which gives me pause...

While the Catalyst facade breaks it also does not seem at all like it has lost control as it walks away, calmly stating the cycle will go on. Everything turns black and despite Shepard's words he/she does not do anything. He/she just stands there, looking almost lost.

It is a stark contrast to the determined expression of Destroy Shepard who stands up pulling the trigger as he/she walks forward,the Catalyst vanishing in the background.

I dont have any answers for this, I can see both options beeing good and bad in their own ways.

@Raistlin Majere: "I would because I value diversity, free will, the hope of the many over the sacrifice of the few"

Free will and diversity is limited in Destroy as well. You also sacrifice the Geth's and the EDI's hope. So you basically betray your own values. You value freedom and hope, yet you are willing to sacrifice them. Refuse does not sacrifice freedom and hope even if everyone dies, because they all died free. They also died with the hope that they had the chance to find another way, not trying is worse than failure.

I am only torn between the two, because it really depends on Shepard.

People say Destroy is what Shepard came to do, but that's not true at all. Do you know why I capitalize Destroy? Because I am making a distinction, Destroy is the ending choice while destroy is less specific and means destruction of something in general as opposed to the Ending choice in Mass Effect. Relevance? Well simply put, Shepard came to destroy the Reapers... not Destroy the Reapers. If you catch my drift, as far as I can tell anyways.

Synthesis is just a more extreme version of Destroy. Destroy sacrifices a finite amount of freedom and hope, to save some lives. While Synthesis sacrifices ALL freedom and hope, in order to save ALL lives. In fact Synthesis isn't that untrustworthy, it bluntly says that there will be no freedom and hope. If Destroy's premise is a fair exchange then so is Synthesis because both the Cost and the Benefits are simply scaled to their most extreme versions.

In Refuse Shepard looks sad AFTER he voiced his conviction, and he should be because conventional victory is impossible and he has such limited time to find another way which will take miracle like odds. It would be wrong not to feel negative emotions about the impending doom.

The Geth and EDI signed themselves up at this point just as you did.

No more compromise with the Old Machines.

SwobyJ wrote:The Geth and EDI signed themselves up at this point just as you did.

No more compromise with the Old Machines.

No they signed themselves up for war, not Destroy so stop lying. Everybody came to earth to save their species, they'd die only if it means there is a chance at hope for a better future so their children can at least live free. So what about the future generations of the Geth? Oh right, their children don't have a chance for hope because they don't exist.

You cannot betray your original purpose, because without it you have no reason to fight the war in the first place. Freedom and Hope are why everyone in the Galaxy has united, including the Geth. If you even THINK about sacrificing their freedom and hope, you are talking about betraying the original reason they are there. So it's literally impossible for them to consent to it if it clearly contradicts their intent.

Edit: Expanding on this, Destroy is essentially the resolve that destroying the Reapers is most important. This is objectively not true, destroying the Reapers may be the way to win the war... but there is an original intent on our part that makes us want to win the war in the first place, right? What is that intent? Freedom and Hope. Without them, nobody in the war would be trying to destroy the Reapers in the first place. Our purpose for winning the war, is what is most important, not how we win it.

EDI: If the Normandy were captured, my fate would be similar to the indoctrinated. My code would be rewritten. I would become loyal to the Reapers. I would rather become non-functional than help them.
Shepard: We won't let that happen to you, EDI.
EDI: You may have no choice. If you perish first, I want you to know I will never be a part of the Reaper forces. The Reapers must be defeated. Not because they threaten death, but because the threat of death makes us die inside. It is the right of sapients to live freely and securely. That is worth non-functionality.

--------------

EDI: Shepard, I'm going to modify my self-preservation code now.
Shepard: Why?
EDI: Because the Reapers are repulsive. They are devoted to nothing but self-preservation. I am different.When I think of Jeff, I think of the person that put his life in peril and freed me from a state of servitude. I would risk non-functionality for him. And my core programming should reflect that.
Shepard: Sounds like you've found a little humanity, EDI. Is it worth defending?
EDI: To the death.


The way I see it, refuse is just another reason to not pick destroy.

What is the number one reason controllers and synthesizers pick their endings? They don't want kill EDI & the Geth.

Refuse is no different. People pick it because they don't want to sacrifice EDI & the Geth. But that's exactly what the Reapers are trying to accomplish. The number one goal is to sway you from wanting to destroy the Reapers. The dreams are constantly making you feel guilty about the ones you killed or couldn't save.

The Reapers are manipulative and exploit the human weakness of always wanting to save everyone.

The catalyst successfully sways you from choosing destroy, but you're useless to him because you refuse to cooperate with control or synthesis.

IronicParticle wrote:

SwobyJ wrote:The Geth and EDI signed themselves up at this point just as you did.

No more compromise with the Old Machines.

No they signed themselves up for war, not Destroy so stop lying. Everybody came to earth to save their species, they'd die only if it means there is a chance at hope for a better future so their children can at least live free. So what about the future generations of the Geth? Oh right, their children don't have a chance for hope because they don't exist.

You cannot betray your original purpose, because without it you have no reason to fight the war in the first place. Freedom and Hope are why everyone in the Galaxy has united, including the Geth. If you even THINK about sacrificing their freedom and hope, you are talking about betraying the original reason they are there. So it's literally impossible for them to consent to it if it clearly contradicts their intent.

Edit: Expanding on this, Destroy is essentially the resolve that destroying the Reapers is most important. This is objectively not true, destroying the Reapers may be the way to win the war... but there is an original intent on our part that makes us want to win the war in the first place, right? What is that intent? Freedom and Hope. Without them, nobody in the war would be trying to destroy the Reapers in the first place. Our purpose for winning the war, is what is most important, not how we win it.

Cool, so:

-We have Refuse, where in a literal view, EVERY sapient species in this cycle has died.
-We have Control and Synthesis, which keeps the Reapers ALIVE.

Winning this war is what it's all about. The Reapers continuously prey on those who think anything else.

When Virmire Casualty dies on Virmire to destroy the Reaper/Saren's base, did they know ahead of time that they they were going to be sticking with a bomb and die next to it?

No, but we know by now that they would have taken your order to do so.

When Mordin dies in order to cure the genophage so that the Krogan will help the Turians to kill the Reapers, did he know ahead of time that he'd be dying in that specific situation on the top of the tower?

No, but we know by now that he would have taken your order to do so.

You betray (strong words, sorry) and honor of the geth by thinking they *wouldn't* sacrifice themselves at this point to destroy the Reapers.

You can't go to a soldier one-by-one and go "Are you ready to die in this specific tactical move?".

Again: "There will be no more compromise with the Old Machines."

Control/Synth = Compromise.
Refuse = The geth and everyone else in this cycle dying. Grats.

The only counter argument that really gets me worried is if Destroy turns out to be a compromise in some form, still. I don't think it is, but it still might be.


And I have a feeling that EDI would agree with my decision, at least: https://youtu.be/eQqMvHJIxqw?t=32s

refuse should be the winning IT choice but Bioware decided to polish their literal turd instead, so I had to pick destroy but that could have just been a trick by the Reaper warlord to get everyone indoctrinated.