The Indoctrination Theory of Shepard

[Commandor Albus]

The Indoctrination Theory is a canon idea. This concept was originally conceived by the developers, but for some internal reasons (such as the departure of key developers), it was likely discarded over time. Chris Hepler's statement from 2021 holds no weight, as it contradicts the words of Casey Hudson and was made after Hepler left BioWare (who, by the way, didn't work on the ending of the third part).

Let’s move on to the facts. According to the Indoctrination Theory, throughout the trilogy, the Reapers aim to manipulate Shepard into their influence. What signs of indoctrination are known to us? Here’s the list:

1. Headache
2. Hum
3. Growling of the Reaper in the head
4. Paranoia
5. Whispering and voices in the mind
6. Hallucinations
7. Memory exchange
8. Oily shadows

We sometimes see Shepard holding his head (it's very much like he has a headache, although he's not the kind of person who would openly show weakness).

Throughout the trilogy, we notice hints of Shepard’s indoctrination and that of his companions. After the incident on Eden Prime, on the Normandy, we hear a whisper in Shepard's head. This whisper doesn’t repeat during the second encounter with the Beacon on Virmire (we had contact with the Reaper on Eden Prime). The whisper also sounds during Shepard’s sleep in the third part.

The Humming in the head is clearly mentioned by James Vega. The murmur of the Reaper can be heard when the boy disappears in the third part. After the contact with the Sovereign, Shepard becomes paranoid and begins to behave rather strangely. Even for a renegade, he should understand where certain people might know about him (for example, through Spectre Intelligence or high-ranking officials). Also, in parts 2 and 3, Shepard has idle animations in which he suspiciously looks around and constantly glances at something.

After the mission on the dead Reaper, we can be certain that indoctrination causes hallucinations. Let’s recall:

Cerberus Scientist: "That thing that just… gray thing! It disappeared when I looked straight at it. Came out of the damn wall! Where we took off that panel"

If we recall the third part of Mass Effect, Shepard experienced exactly the same hallucination when he saw the boy, who:

1. Was wearing a gray hoodie.
2. Appeared from the wall where the panel was removed.
3. Disappeared when Shepard looked directly at him.
4. Afterward, the murmur of the Reaper sounded (that Reaper, which was nearby, emitted a completely different sound).

Moreover, during the run through the buildings in the beginning of the third part, you can notice that the civilians, who should be running from the Reaper, are running straight into its beam. Yes, someone might say it’s low-poly Jack, but the point remains: their actions clearly show the absurdity of the situation, given that they are heading directly towards the Reaper.

Memory exchange in the game is shown in various ways: mainly involving Shepard and James Vega. It’s as if they are reliving the same events — the defense of the colonies, the destruction of the Collector base. But the most interesting part is James’ story about Tarquin. He never met him, nor was he aboard the ship. Where did James get such feelings for the turian he never properly interacted with? Considering that James hears the buzzing in his head (we can learn about this indoctrination from the animated short about him), it can be assumed that he is recounting Shepard’s feelings and thoughts.

The oily shadows, which are mentioned by the queen of the rachni, are clearly shown in Shepard’s dreams, during the conversation with the Reaper on Rannoch, and at the end of the game, when the Specter tries to stop Anderson and Shepard.

There are still questions: How did the Catalyst turn into a boy? Why does he speak with the Reaper's voice? And why is the beam from the Citadel directed to the Viper Nebula, where in the second part, Shepard destroyed the relay? How did Shepard survive the full explosion of the Citadel?

There’s much to discuss, but for now, let’s leave these questions unanswered.

[Doc_Hotpants]

The IT is an interesting idea, but it is most definitely not canon. It's basically fanfiction.

If your argument is that Shepard has shown signs throughout ME3 (at least), then it absolutely cannot be true, as the VI on Thessia starts for Shepard and would not do that if they felt signs of indoctrination (not full indoctrination - that is never stated).

Having hallucinations, nightmares etc. can just as easily be explained as PTSD. Or, you know, inconsistent writing where they simply made stuff up as they went along, discarding some stuff they didn't have time to follup on etc. In order to fill what's missing, people come up with their own idea (as in fanfiction).

So... *shrug* Again, interesting concept, but in the end fanfiction.

[simonhobnob]

I think that Indoctrination was trying to happen to Shepherd... but thanks to Project Lazarus Shepherd is able to fight it off in the final mission and is pretty much immune to its long term exposure effects. (while being susceptible to short term).

It's only in my head, but their is some info we get that would support this:

Project Lazarus had one single PRIMARY goal (as explained by Miranda) - To bring back Commander Shepherd EXACTLY as he/she was before they died. Not just body, personality as well.

Project Lazarus involved using technology (both mechanical and biological) to do so - nanites being one thing and it's suggested also involved some Prothean and Reaper tech AND illegal/not explored due to ethical issues bioscience and tech.

(Thanks to the Illusive man and Kai - the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ - saying they were enhanced by the same tech as Shepherd and a lot of it was unique to Cerberus and even Shepherd themselves - especially when it came to "make sure Shepherd remains THEMSELF" primary insstruction.)

I also wonder if this is why we may get Shep in ME4. Because Lazarus was pushing all ethical boundries and moral implications... maybe Shep cannot die of age. Ever. Only extreme physical damage (and even then only maybe with the high score red ending of ME 3)

[Apollyon]

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

The Indoctrination Theory is a canon idea.

Starting off strong with a completely made up lie, I see. No point reading any further than this, I can pretty much tell what the rest is going to be.

The indoctrination theory is nothing but cope fuel, has been officially debunked by Bioware devs and the only people still clinging to it are fanfic writers.

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by Doc_Hotpants:

The IT is an interesting idea, but it is most definitely not canon. It's basically fanfiction.

If your argument is that Shepard has shown signs throughout ME3 (at least), then it absolutely cannot be true, as the VI on Thessia starts for Shepard and would not do that if they felt signs of indoctrination (not full indoctrination - that is never stated).

Having hallucinations, nightmares etc. can just as easily be explained as PTSD. Or, you know, inconsistent writing where they simply made stuff up as they went along, discarding some stuff they didn't have time to follup on etc. In order to fill what's missing, people come up with their own idea (as in fanfiction).

So... *shrug* Again, interesting concept, but in the end fanfiction.

I think we've already discussed the point with V.I. regarding indoctrination. One thing that is clear from this situation is that the VI has identified Kai Leng as indoctrinated (we know he is packed with reaper technology from the canonical books). However, there are also stages of indoctrination, so solely because of VI should not draw conclusions. What is canon is a matter of interpretation and every interpretation has a right to live until BioWare refutes or confirms something different(Casey Hudson explicitly said so in 2013). So as I have already explained in the previous thread and in this thread the WI as for me does not prove or disprove anything. there can be no presumption in this matter for me.

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by simonhobnob:

I think that Indoctrination was trying to happen to Shepherd... but thanks to Project Lazarus Shepherd is able to fight it off in the final mission and is pretty much immune to its long term exposure effects. (while being susceptible to short term).

It's only in my head, but their is some info we get that would support this:

Project Lazarus had one single PRIMARY goal (as explained by Miranda) - To bring back Commander Shepherd EXACTLY as he/she was before they died. Not just body, personality as well.

Project Lazarus involved using technology (both mechanical and biological) to do so - nanites being one thing and it's suggested also involved some Prothean and Reaper tech AND illegal/not explored due to ethical issues bioscience and tech.

(Thanks to the Illusive man and Kai - the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ - saying they were enhanced by the same tech as Shepherd and a lot of it was unique to Cerberus and even Shepherd themselves - especially when it came to "make sure Shepherd remains THEMSELF" primary insstruction.)

I also wonder if this is why we may get Shep in ME4. Because Lazarus was pushing all ethical boundries and moral implications... maybe Shep cannot die of age. Ever. Only extreme physical damage (and even then only maybe with the high score red ending of ME 3)

I don't think there's anything at all to stop the reapers from taking control of Shepard. There are just different stages of indoctrination. If they need Shepard (as the harbinger said they do), then it's likely that the indoctrination is slow. Plus, the Phantom had a lot of reaper technology that they were shoving into themselves and their soldiers. As far as I know, it's thanks to nanites that reapers from dark space can manipulate consciousness.

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by Superbia:

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

The Indoctrination Theory is a canon idea.

Starting off strong with a completely made up lie, I see. No point reading any further than this, I can pretty much tell what the rest is going to be.

The indoctrination theory is nothing but cope fuel, has been officially debunked by Bioware devs and the only people still clinging to it are fanfic writers.

The theory of indoctrination has not been officially disproved by BioWare itself.
What Helper wrote directly contradicts what for example Casey Hudson said when he was a current developer) So nothing is official yet. The words of former developers - food for thought, nothing more me. Canon is a matter of interpretation. So the lies and slander are only on your part.

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by SpaceWombat:

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

The Indoctrination Theory is a canon idea. This concept was originally conceived by the developers, but for some internal reasons (such as the departure of key developers), it was likely discarded over time.

I'd tell you why it's not canon but your second sentence already did.

You can take off the tinfoil hat dude. It's been 13 years lmao. :lukasLaugh:

The former developer's words are just food for thought, nothing more for me. Until BioWare refutes or confirms them, the game's story remains subject to interpretation - as it always is, and as Casey said, the ending is open to interpretation too. Almost everything you wrote amounts to an ad hominem attack. It's not about the number of years, especially since I've only recently been introduced to this universe. So in this case I am not engaging in presupposition (which I think you are doing).

[Apollyon]

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

The theory of indoctrination has not been officially disproved by BioWare itself.

Yes it has. The quote by Hepler himself calls it fanfic and clearly states it was not written by them or was their intention whatsoever.

It's nothing but fanfic, but feel free to keep lying to yourself if you must lol. Just stop claiming it's canon, cause it's not and never will be.

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by SpaceWombat:

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

Canon is a matter of interpretation.

Canon is by definition NOT up to interpretation:

"established or agreed-upon constraints governing the background narrative, setting, storyline, characters, etc., in a particular fictional world:"

Indoctrication theory is not canon because it is not agreed-upon. You cannot claim something to be even tangentially related to canon if it cannot be unanimously agreed upon as being an official part of the fiction. Full-stop case closed. There's nothing to debate here dude.

That's how IPs that don't belong to you work.

To claim that “canon is by definition not subject to interpretation” is only in terms of recognizing officially established facts and frameworks. I, on the other hand, am talking about interpretation of semantic nuances. The title of this topic is “Shepard's Theory of Indoctrination”, which carries a different context. Your invocation of the term is not valid in this case.

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by Superbia:

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

The theory of indoctrination has not been officially disproved by BioWare itself.

Yes it has. The quote by Helper herself calls it fanfic and clearly states it was not written by them or was their intention whatsoever.

It's nothing but fanfic, but feel free to keep lying to yourself if you must lol. Just stop claiming it's canon, cause it's not and never will be.

Another ad hominem. I have already explained (as I did in my previous text) why this not valid for me. If you have something to say without repeating this pattern, feel free to let me know.

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by SpaceWombat:

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

Canon is a matter of interpretation.

Canon is by definition NOT up to interpretation:

"established or agreed-upon constraints governing the background narrative, setting, storyline, characters, etc., in a particular fictional world:"

Indoctrication theory is not canon because it is not agreed-upon. You cannot claim something to be even tangentially related to canon if it cannot be unanimously agreed upon as being an official part of the fiction. Full-stop case closed. There's nothing to debate here dude.

That's how IPs that don't belong to you work.

The ending of the game within the stupefaction theory is open to the player's interpretation :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8BSg9KIe0k&t=7s 16.00

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by SpaceWombat:

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

interpretation of semantic nuances. The title of this topic is “Shepard's Theory of Indoctrination”, which carries a different context. Your invocation of the term is not valid in this case.

Dude it doesn't matter how logical your interpretation is, hell I even agree that IT has a sensible aspect to it. The fact of the matter though is we do not own the IP. We're talking about made up stuff that originated from somebody elses head who's not present to have discussion about it. If the creator hasn't clearly stated something as being true in the universe they made that it simply is not until they otherwise state it to be so.

I don't know why you even bothered to make a discussion post if the only reply you can make is that you're right because you interpret definitions differently than the rest of society. You can't blame people for winding up at ad-hominem when the only logical basis for your case is purely subjective.

It's about the premises in the reasoning, not IT itself. As far as I know for 2025 we haven't gotten a clear no IT rebuttal or confirmation from BioWare. The endings of the game are still open to interpretation according to the developers themselves (as far as I know Michael Gamble is still a developer at BioWare. So we are open to dialog on this and the topic. Since there is even something that attracts you in IT we can discuss some specific aspects. After all, while the endings of the game and the semantic plot are subjective interpretations of the players, until the author himself (BioWare, it is and appeal to authority, but within the idea of “Death of the author” works) on his own behalf does not make a statement.

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by SpaceWombat:

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

interpretation of semantic nuances. The title of this topic is “Shepard's Theory of Indoctrination”, which carries a different context. Your invocation of the term is not valid in this case.

Dude it doesn't matter how logical your interpretation is, hell I even agree that IT has a sensible aspect to it. The fact of the matter though is we do not own the IP. We're talking about made up stuff that originated from somebody elses head who's not present to have discussion about it. If the creator hasn't clearly stated something as being true in the universe they made that it simply is not until they otherwise state it to be so.

I don't know why you even bothered to make a discussion post if the only reply you can make is that you're right because you interpret definitions differently than the rest of society. You can't blame people for winding up at ad-hominem when the only logical basis for your case is purely subjective.

There can be many positions in interpreting what happens in the game. So I know that all the “nonsense” happening in the game can be explained by the fact that the developers simply made mistakes. This is also an interpretation, also has presuppositions and works within the framework of subjective experience. I think everyone has their own rational approach in this case.

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by SpaceWombat:

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

interpretation of semantic nuances. The title of this topic is “Shepard's Theory of Indoctrination”, which carries a different context. Your invocation of the term is not valid in this case.

Dude it doesn't matter how logical your interpretation is, hell I even agree that IT has a sensible aspect to it. The fact of the matter though is we do not own the IP. We're talking about made up stuff that originated from somebody elses head who's not present to have discussion about it. If the creator hasn't clearly stated something as being true in the universe they made that it simply is not until they otherwise state it to be so.

I don't know why you even bothered to make a discussion post if the only reply you can make is that you're right because you interpret definitions differently than the rest of society. You can't blame people for winding up at ad-hominem when the only logical basis for your case is purely subjective.

There is, for example, a more radical approach to the theory of indoctrination. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZO4dGZptE&t=981s

[Commandor Albus]

Originally posted by SpaceWombat:

Originally posted by Commander Shepard:

"As far as I know for 2025 we haven't gotten a clear no IT rebuttal or confirmation from BioWare."

I don't even understand the word salad you are replying. You keep refuting your own reasoning and it's making it impossible for me to rationalize your point.

You literally keep telling yourself why it isn't canon. If you're interested in the possibilities of the lore that's cool but please stop trying to tie people up in circular logic in an attempt to make yourself sound correct out of sheer ambiguity.

There is no absurdity really. The topic is originally argued within the framework of subjective ideas (but their subjectivity does not imply that they are not true). You just don't understand what I'm talking about in general.