141 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

-Skorpious- wrote...

I'll give a cookie to anyone who can justify explain how Cerberus' decision to kidnap human children makes them the "good guys" in the eyes of the human race. Until anyone can successfully do so, then yes, Cerberus is nothing more than a self-centered organization looking to benefit themselves rather than others.

You realize the most zealous Cerby supporters can justify explain just about anything. TIM could eat a baby in front of them and it would change very, very little about their views.

He could eat two babies. Ten babies. Fifty thousand babies. So long as there is an ambiguous uncertain unproven amount of lives that may be saved by said baby eating, it's perfectly okay.

Ah, the joys of defining morality by an uncertain probability of justification.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

First it was a majority.

Well, it's a majority from what we see in the game. Volus are uncommon, elcor are rare, hanar even moreso.

What we see in the game is the Citadel (the shared capital of the Council races), Illium (an Asari world), and big-money places like Noveria (doesn't care the color the wallet-holder).

Of course we're going to see more Asari/Turians/Salarians in places they live and dominate. When we went to Omega, we saw a lot more Batarians and Vorcha. When we went to Tuchanka, we saw Krogan. When we went to Feros, we saw mostly humans.

We hardly have a representative look at the galaxy, Xil.

I don't recall who said that, as opposed to disputing that Udina was doing a terrible job.

Well, you.

I'm fairly sure I was disputing that Udina was doing a terrible job, and pointed at something he was willing to do that no one else does.

It's most definitely not legal under Council law; if the Alliance is actively using Cerberus, it should be in line for quite a few reprisals.

What makes Council Law legitimate? It was self appointed, and can claim no democratic legitimacy either.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 15 novembre 2010 - 08:21 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

-Skorpious- wrote...

I'll give a cookie to anyone who can justify explain how Cerberus' decision to kidnap human children makes them the "good guys" in the eyes of the human race. Until anyone can successfully do so, then yes, Cerberus is nothing more than a self-centered organization looking to benefit themselves rather than others.

You realize the most zealous Cerby supporters can justify explain just about anything. TIM could eat a baby in front of them and it would change very, very little about their views.

He could eat two babies. Ten babies. Fifty thousand babies. So long as there is an ambiguous uncertain unproven amount of lives that may be saved by said baby eating, it's perfectly okay.

Ah, the joys of defining morality by an uncertain probability of justification.

Well, I sure am glad you never have to make any decisions based on an unknown future and likely happenings, Night. Makes me all warm and cozy.

[Nightwriter]

Silly Dean. Wisdom is balancing morality and consequentialism. Wisdom is walking the middle path. Rely too much upon consequentialism and you shall make the wrong decisions, just as you would if you relied too much upon morality.

I do not fault you for not being paragon, I fault you for straying from this middle path, which is neither paragon or renegade, but a balance of both.

[Dean_the_Young]

Actually, both my Paragon and Renegade characters fail late-game persuasion checks without the Para/Rene import bonus.

[BIO18]

No matter how angry I was in the beginning of the game , TIM said our ways could always separate if I didn't want to work with him , so I thought I could leave after the first colony investigation , Then to my surprise I started defending Cerberus against the council . Cerberus might be horrible , but you gota admit , without Cerberus , the galaxy would have been doomed ... No Shepard , No investigation , No assault , No nothing . But I still dont trust them , Cerberus and TIM are more linked to the reapers then we think .

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Nightwriter wrote...

Silly Dean. Wisdom is balancing morality and consequentialism. Wisdom is walking the middle path. Rely too much upon consequentialism and you shall make the wrong decisions, just as you would if you relied too much upon morality.

I do not fault you for not being paragon, I fault you for straying from this middle path, which is neither paragon or renegade, but a balance of both.

Consequentialism is morality. If the ends don't justify the means, might I ask what does?

[Nightwriter]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Actually, both my Paragon and Renegade characters fail late-game persuasion checks without the Para/Rene import bonus.

I feel your pain.

But that's what renegade/paragon point glitches are for. If you have six hours to spare... on a totally monotonous task...

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Nightwriter wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Actually, both my Paragon and Renegade characters fail late-game persuasion checks without the Para/Rene import bonus.

I feel your pain.

But that's what renegade/paragon point glitches are for. If you have six hours to spare... on a totally monotonous task...

Yeah I pretty much never do ME2 NG+. The bonus minerals are almost more of a draw for me than the bonus renegade/paragon points.

Modifié par Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams, 15 novembre 2010 - 08:51 .

[Xilizhra]

Consequentialism is morality. If the ends don't justify the means, might I ask what does?

The ends justify only the least damaging means available.

What makes Council Law legitimate? It was self appointed, and can claim no democratic legitimacy either.

The individual species governments that make it up. Effectively, the Council is an alliance between them, its territory being those of its member species. Simply existing in Council space doesn't mean that you have to belong to it, or have representatives there.

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Consequentialism is morality. If the ends don't justify the means, might I ask what does?

The ends justify only the least damaging means available.

What makes Council Law legitimate? It was self appointed, and can claim no democratic legitimacy either.

The individual species governments that make it up. Effectively, the Council is an alliance between them, its territory being those of its member species. Simply existing in Council space doesn't mean that you have to belong to it, or have representatives there.

And where do they get their legitimacy to rule over other species?

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Xilizhra wrote...

Consequentialism is morality. If the ends don't justify the means, might I ask what does?

The ends justify only the least damaging means available.

True, but not at the expense of the ends. If, of course, the ends are beneficial.

[Xilizhra]

And where do they get their legitimacy to rule over other species?

As far as I can tell, they don't rule over other species at all.

[Phaedon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
I apologize: I thought we were still going on the other analogy.

Come 2185, all it would take is a galactic war to increase the risk again. Look at the recent Turian war in Cerberus Daily News.

It's not exactly recent but I get what you mean.
Let's use your own example. Some extremists decided to kill millions with a terrorist attack. Then, the Turian Hierarchy sent soldiers and kicked their asses. It's simple. There was nothing 'bad' the Hierarchy could gain from attacking the Dilulvian Wildlands. Morally, it was simple. Being a Cerberus operative is much more morally complicated.

If Pallin did deserve to be removed, is that a wicked thing?

Removed ? This sounds like the Kahoku argument all over again.
If someone deserves to be removed, you fire him. Killing them is idiotic, dirtier and... bad.

Modifié par Phaedon, 15 novembre 2010 - 09:44 .

[Iakus]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Consequentialism is morality. If the ends don't justify the means, might I ask what does?

"Journey before destination"

[Nozybidaj]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

I seem to lack that part of the brain that makes these conversations possible...

The Cerberus crew is nice because Cerberus is suddenly nice in ME2. Sure, their methods are flawed (or so they keep saying) but their heart is at the right place. That's why Cerberus is full of people like Kelly ("i love aliens! but i still fight for human rights if needed!"), Rupert ("proud to be here because we get things done!") or others that work there as if Cerberus was just another company like Ken and Gabby ("The Alliance was acting weird so we migrated to the next best thing!").

We only have our problems with the whole situation if we played ME1 and try to match our experience with what we see in ME2.

My point is: they created a new version of Cerberus for the game and added a few dialogs, especially in the beginning of the game, to smooth things over a bit. Why they did that, who the heck knows. But anyway, i recommend taking things as they are not trying to create consistency with the ME1 universe and make up complex theories that justify why things don't fit anymore.

This.   I took it as just a remake of Cerberus with a few lines to hand wave away the ME1 Cerberus like many of the things hand waved away from ME1.  I never thought it was supposed to be some grand scheme or mystery.

[Elite Midget]

Yet the novels protray a more ME1 Cerberus than a ME2 Cerberus. Funny, huh?

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Elite Midget wrote...

Yet the novels protray a more ME1 Cerberus than a ME2 Cerberus. Funny, huh?

Here's what Bioware should have done:

ME1
UNC: Observe Cerberus Experiment

Description: Go to xxxx system in xxxx cluster and talk to the Cerberus scientists about there latest experiment that is producing good results in shield regeneration with no mercenaries, geth, or enemies of any kind.

ME Novel:
Mass Effect: Cerberus Cures Diabetes

Description: Read the logs of Dr. xxxx of Cerberus and read about him describing lab procedures in the new novel with zero conflict and a happy ending for humanity.

Ok but seriously, we're only going to hear about the Cerberus sh*t because everything else is irrelevant and uninteresting in the ME universe.

Modifié par Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams, 15 novembre 2010 - 11:53 .

[Elite Midget]

Hah, Cerberus never shares their information willingly. They don't even let Shepard poke around their cells in ME2 unless something goes horribly wrong. If Cerberus was doing good than why are they so shy in using that to convince Shepard?

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Elite Midget wrote...

Hah, Cerberus never shares their information willingly. They don't even let Shepard poke around their cells in ME2 unless something goes horribly wrong. If Cerberus was doing good than why are they so shy in using that to convince Shepard?

Because Cerberus doesn't give two craps about their public image. They are out to advance humanity. They care little if people think they're terrorists. They're going to get the job done anyway.

[Count Viceroy]

Elite Midget wrote...

Hah, Cerberus never shares their information willingly. They don't even let Shepard poke around their cells in ME2 unless something goes horribly wrong. If Cerberus was doing good than why are they so shy in using that to convince Shepard?

The whole point of cells is for them to remain independant of each other so one can't compromise the other. Don't want anyone poking around, cerberus personel or otherwise.

[wookieeassassin]

So I wonder what the implications will be of Shepard working with Cerberus in ME3? The Council, Anderson and Ashley/Kaidan were obviously upset about it but after you talked to them about it for the first time everyone sorta dismissed it. Does Shepard get a "one free treason" pass while everyone else who works for Cerberus is considered a criminal?

Modifié par wookieeassassin, 16 novembre 2010 - 03:22 .

[Elite Midget]

TIM is incharge of Cerberus and checks in on the Cells occassionally for his results. If he was doing thing other than furthering his agenda than why hide it from Shepard? I mean, Shepard is 'far' more important as an ally than what the public thinks. After all, recruiting Ex-Alliance and having brainwashed Kelly try and cast a false view on Cerberus was a start. Though if he really wanted to have a loyal Shepard than why not go away?

[MisterDyslexo]

wookieeassassin wrote...
 Does Shepard get a "one free treason" pass while everyone else who works for Cerberus is considered a criminal?

Admiral Hackett seems intent on that

[wookieeassassin]

Yeah I remember seeing something about Hackett not wanting to bring Shepard in one of the shadow broker dossiers, I guess he thinks that Shepard is working with Cerberus for a reason. Shepard does have a good reputation so far..
However, why doesn't the Council send someone after him? Do they think he is ultimately doing it for good or do they give him a free pass since he saved their asses (assuming you save the council, I dont know what happens with an all human council)

On a side note, the whole thing about people not believing in Reapers or Collectors could easily be solved by a suit-mounted camera and audio recorder. I'm surprised Shepard hasn't thought of that yet.

Modifié par wookieeassassin, 16 novembre 2010 - 03:56 .