110 réponses à ce sujet

[Caihn]

Grunt, Zaeed and Legion. That's all.

[Schattenkeil]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Grunt, Zaeed,Garrus, Miranda,possibly even Samara.

Samara? "The purpose of the code is to protect the innocent and punish the wicked. Not to offer spiritual enlightment." And the collector base sure is wicked and from Samara's perspective Cerberus must seem so as well. A "the end justifies the means" attitude is the exact antithesis of what she stands for.

Garrus has been frustrated with C-Sec in the past and his reason to work on his own was mostly the same why Jacob left the alliance. Yet he is driven by a strong sense of justice, not to reach a particular goal. He doesn't want to bring Saren down because it is necessary for the good of all species in council space or the Turians in particular, but because it is just. He certainly is keenly aware of Cerberus' crimes, as he's aware that the conflict with the Turians was the original spark for the foundation of Cerberus. Of all possible species, Turians have the least reason to trust Cerberus. He is aware what kind of evil one may to people with the installations within the base. He may have extreme ideas of bringing people to justice and be not above hitting prisoners or killing people he things wronged him... but he certainly is not willing to pass such a nightmarish menagerie of torture devices to an organization who will do whatever it takes to study them "for the good of humanity". Garrus may be down to earth, the archetype of the desillioned cop, like some 50s film noir. But he does fight for good, and he's not necessarily gain oriented.

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 20 octobre 2010 - 01:36 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Schattenkeil wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Grunt, Zaeed,Garrus, Miranda,possibly even Samara.

Samara? "The purpose of the code is to protect the innocent and punish the wicked. Not to offer spiritual enlightment." And the collector base sure is wicked and from Samara's perspective Cerberus must seem so as well. A "the end justifies the means" attitude.

The Collector Base is just that. It's a thing, not an anthromorphized living creature. Calling it evil is like putting a gun on trial for murder: there's no point. It's an object.

Samara was already well ready within her Code to work with Cerberus and Shepard against the Collectors, and the Reapers are far greater evil. Giving the Base to Cerberus is a more likely path to protect more innocents than NOT giving the Base to Cerberus. By her own (certainly not Paragon) Code, she could be bound to save it if she were not under oath to you: not as a 'the end justifies the means', but 'the lesser evil, the more innocents saved' paradigm.

Samara is a force for law. Not good. If the code were to prompt her to keep the base, she would.

Garrus has been frustrated with C-Sec in the past and his reason to work on his own was mostly the same why Jacob left the alliance. Yet he is driven by a strong sense of justice, not to reach a particular goal. He doesn't want to bring Saren down because it is necessary for the good of all species in council space or the Turians in particular, but because it is just. He certainly is keenly aware of Cerberus' crimes, as he's aware that the conflict with the Turians was the original spark for the foundation of Cerberus. He is aware what kind of evil one may to people with the installations within the base. He may have extreme ideas of bringing people to justice and be not above hitting prisoners or killing people he things wronged him... but he certainly is not willing to pass such a nightmarish menagerie of torture devices to an organization who will do whatever it takes to study them "for the good of humanity". Garrus may be down to earth, the archetype of the desillioned cop, like some 50s film noir. But he does fight for good, and he's not necessarily gain oriented.

If you can't see the good in oposing the Reapers in a fashion most likely to save the most lives possible, I question your view of justice and good.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 20 octobre 2010 - 01:42 .

[LuPho]

I mostly destroyed the base to keep it from cerberus. If i could have worked with the people who SHOULD have believed me, ie: the council and Alliance i might have kept it but since i have to work with a group that lacks supervision i had to destroy it. and what comes to the reaction, I think most would have agreed that destroying is the only real option. maybe Grunt, Miranda and Zaeed would have kept it but rest would have destroyed it. And no, it's not only a base but also a Reaper factory. The equipment to make the reaper was still in the base after you destroyed the thing itself.

Modifié par LuPho, 20 octobre 2010 - 01:53 .

[Schattenkeil]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Schattenkeil wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Grunt, Zaeed,Garrus, Miranda,possibly even Samara.

Samara? "The purpose of the code is to protect the innocent and punish the wicked. Not to offer spiritual enlightment." And the collector base sure is wicked and from Samara's perspective Cerberus must seem so as well. A "the end justifies the means" attitude.

The Collector Base is just that. It's a thing, not an anthromorphized living creature. Calling it evil is like putting a gun on trial for murder: there's no point. It's an object.

Samara was already well ready within her Code to work with Cerberus and Shepard against the Collectors, and the Reapers are far greater evil. Giving the Base to Cerberus is a more likely path to protect more innocents than NOT giving the Base to Cerberus. By her own (certainly not Paragon) Code, she could be bound to save it if she were not under oath to you: not as a 'the end justifies the means', but 'the lesser evil, the more innocents saved' paradigm.

That's the thing: It is thinkable that in the end more people would be saved than harmed by keeping the collector base. But Samara doesn't care about future implications. To her the end does not justify the means. Protecting the innocent by becoming wicked is not acceptable. The base itself may or not be just machinery, but it is certain that it is machinery you don't want anyone to use. It may or may not be wicked on its own but utilizing it certainly is, especially from an organization who has tried to create their own husks as shock troops before. Even if it was sure that the Collector base will be the one thing you need to save the galaxy eventually, Samara would want to destroy it if it was right here and now. With the same determination she kills her own daughter.

The reason she is ready to work with you is the oath she swore. She will accept your decision, but that doesn't mean she won't have an own oppinion, what she would do if she were to decide.

As for my or your sense of justice and evil or the absence of it: We're not discussing our sense here, but Garrus'. To defeat the reapers it would certainly be effective to have a standing as good as anyhow possible with Eclipse, the Blue Suns and the Bloodpack and it may in fact save many people to get them to your cause. Yet he chooses to fight them. Stop smuggling operations, help people. In the debrief for his recruitment in Mass Effect 2 he accepts to join you, but he is pretty clear about his oppinion regarding Cerberus even though I don't remember his exact wording.

Garrus didn't really destroy any of the three mercenary groups conducting illegal and harmful business on Omega. If he had cooperated with it is very likely that he would have gained better results in hampering everything illegal. Now that everyone thinks he's dead he had little impact at all. Why is that so? Why didn't just ignore the unjustice of, say, Eclipse's relatively harmless smuggling operations and fight the other two first? Well, because he's very determined in his sense of justice.

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 20 octobre 2010 - 04:05 .

[MrDizazta]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Why does Legion change his mind?

Because at the base he says:
This base is data, destroying it will not bring back those who were lost, but it may save lives later.

However when you destroy it he says:
An interesting choice Shepard-Commander, you were offered everything the Geth aspire to, true unity understanding, yet you rejected it and chose to achieve your goals on your own, you are more like the Geth than we realized.

I dont get it, they dont have anything to do with the other. In one he wants to keep the base, yet says "Oh now you are like Geth! So blowing the base is all good!"

This comes up with the speration of the Geth and the "Heretics"
The "Heretics" were the Geth that sided with Saren and Sovereign.  They aspired to achieve to the level of the Reapers, even as to go a far as to worship them.
Legion is a part of the Geth that rejected the Reapers.  They believe that they alone are the shapers of their own destiny.  Following the Reapers (or "Old Machines") takes them off that path.

[Dean_the_Young]

Schattenkeil wrote...
That's the thing: It is thinkable that in the end more people would be saved than harmed by keeping the collector base. But Samara doesn't care about future implications. To her the end does not justify the means. Protecting the innocent by becoming wicked is not acceptable. The base itself may or not be just machinery, but it is certain that it is machinery you don't want anyone to use. It may or may not be wicked on its own but utilizing it certainly is, especially from an organization who has tried to create their own husks as shock troops before. Even if it was sure that the Collector base will be the one thing you need to save the galaxy eventually, Samara would want to destroy it if it was right here and now. With the same determination she kills her own daughter.

Hogwash.Samara does care about future implications: the entire reason she offers you the Justicar oath in the first part is the future implication of what will happen if she is kept at the police station. Likewise, she was outmaneuveredby Nihlus because he set up a situation where the future implication and risk if she did one thing was against her code.

Samara and her code is under obligation to consider future implications. It isn't a stream of consciousness legalism. Likewise, the Collector Base isn't inherently just or unjust, and neither is the simple act of studying it. The Collectors were unjust, but they are killed regardless.

Samara's code has already let her work into the advantage of unscrupulous groups a number of times. Simply because it benefits a 'bad group' doesn't mean it won't happen: destroying it can benefit a worse group far more with far more innocents at risk.

The reason she is ready to work with you is the oath she swore. She will accept your decision, but that doesn't mean she won't have an own oppinion, what she would do if she were to decide.

Never under dispute.

Of course, Samara doesn't follow her own opinion when she isn't under oath to you, because she follows the Code. Which, as she admits in your first meeting, is inherently just, not nice or even, to a Paragon Shepard's reply, good.

As for my or your sense of justice and evil or the absence of it: We're not discussing our sense here, but Garrus'. To defeat the reapers it would certainly be effective to have a standing as good as anyhow possible with Eclipse, the Blue Suns and the Bloodpack and it may in fact save many people to get them to your cause. Yet he chooses to fight them. Stop smuggling operations, help people. In the debrief for his recruitment in Mass Effect 2 he accepts to join you, but he is pretty clear about his oppinion regarding Cerberus even though I don't remember his exact wording.

Garrus didn't really destroy any of the three mercenary groups conducting illegal and harmful business on Omega. If he had cooperated with it is very likely that he would have gained better results in hampering everything illegal. Now that everyone thinks he's dead he had little impact at all. Why is that so? Why didn't just ignore the unjustice of, say, Eclipse's relatively harmless smuggling operations and fight the other two first? Well, because he's very determined in his sense of justice.

And...what does that have to do with his sense of justice affecting his choice? A sense of justice doesn't mean you must destroy the base.

Garrus isn't an anti-Cerberus crewmate. Once he's on board he even admits to wishing he had worked with them sooner.

[mopotter]

Tleining wrote...

to me it kinda shows the difference between making a choice right in the action, and thinking/sleeping your choice over.
When you are presented with the option "Destroy the technology/keep the Technology", it would make sense to keep it. All your squadmates know the reapers are coming. Afterwards it's about giving that tech to Tim. For the same reason, i wouldn't have given the base to the council. Who knows what they would have used it for.

Not for me.  My first play through I destroyed it and the most recent play through I've destroyed it.  For me, it has nothing to do with thinking/sleeping my choice and all to do with how disgusted the reaper technology makes me feel.   I do not trust Tim as far as I could throw him.  Actually, I don't trust any group, Alliance, Tim, The council,  with the information that the base had.  If that makes ME3 harder to win, I'll accept that.   

[mopotter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Grunt, Zaeed,Garrus, Miranda,possibly even Samara.

I don't see any of the non-human races agreeing that giving the base to Cerberus is a good idea.  They only reason Cerberus wanted them to help was to serve humanity.  The fact that they did agree to help just says they saw the greater threat.  

Actually this would be where I think they might have messed up the writing.  It would have been nice if each character had their own comment when you go to the base, but that I guess would have been difficult.

[Isaidlunch]

Honestly I think destroying the base focused way too much on "Ooooo bad things happened here, keeping our human spirit is much more important than destroying the Reapers!" since most of the destroying the base reasons listed on this forum seem to focus around not trusting Cerberus/TIM or it being too dangerous.

That bothered me a lot, but it was nothing compared to when Miranda does a complete 180 and says "It would feel wrong to use this base!". Really? Who is this person and what has she done with the real Miranda, the one who just a few minutes ago suggested throwing the whole Normandy crew to the wolves and showed absolutely no emotion when discovering they never made it back to the ship?

I'm not going to say how the decision was handled ruined the game for me because frankly that's silly, but I was disappointed and hope that should there be a similar decision that squadmates aren't pushed OOC in the process and that Shepard makes the choice based on logical reasoning and not on emotional/ethical reasoning.

Modifié par Kazanth, 21 octobre 2010 - 02:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

mopotter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Grunt, Zaeed,Garrus, Miranda,possibly even Samara.

I don't see any of the non-human races agreeing that giving the base to Cerberus is a good idea.  They only reason Cerberus wanted them to help was to serve humanity.  The fact that they did agree to help just says they saw the greater threat.  

Actually this would be where I think they might have messed up the writing.  It would have been nice if each character had their own comment when you go to the base, but that I guess would have been difficult.

Just because it helps Humanity most doesn't mean that the rest of the galaxy doesn't benefit as well: the Reapers, as you yourself say, are the greater threat.

Maybe I'm just one of those strange, strange Renegade who would have still saved the base if it didn't go to Humanity. Even the Batarians.

Because the Reapers are still the far greater threat.

If a pragmatic human could do it for a non-human race, why can't a pragmatic alien (or even a code-bound one, or a self-hating alien one, or any number of variations) do the same?


What's good for Cerberus isn't bad for the galaxy. It isn't a zero sum game.