302 réponses à ce sujet

[Commandant Bob]

Ahglock wrote...

Commandant Bob wrote...

The question is whether torturing or murdering people is the ONLY way to stop the Reapers. If yes, then Cerberus is justified and not "bad", because they had good intentions.
However, good intentions are only part of what make you good. Trying to find the best way to do things also counts.
For an example, think back to KOTOR... if i see a couple of punks beating up some Ithorian, and my first reaction is to shoot the kids(well, if i could), i would be bad, because i made no effort to find a better way to solve the problem. Likewise, Cerberus should look for alternative methods of problem solving.

When you are talking galactic extinction is it the only way is a bit too high of a standard.  The question is does it improve your chances.  The problem with is it the only way ideas is it is only apparent in 20/20 hindsight.   You go full paragon and win and yopu can say, look I still won and did not sacrifice my beleifs.  That is awesome when it works out, but if you lost saying  I did not sacrifice my beliefs is little consolation to the trillions of lives lost.   Before the event occurs you only have what is my best shot.

End of ME1 is a perfect exmaple of this.  Go for save everyone like a paragon, or go with the highest shot of victory like a renegade.  Personally I think the paragon way was grossly irresponsible, but everyone is different.  So in ME1 the renegade choice isn't the only way to win, but before oyu make your decisio  you have basically 2 options.  1.  Try to save everyone but have a higher chance of losing everyone.  2.  Sacrifice some but have a higher chance of not losing everyone.  In Me1 I think it was a bit skewed because the sacrifice some was a minute fraction of the total population. 

So when it comes to cerberus action that actually were intended to help in the fight against the reapers. Is it possible to save more people with a different strategy, maybe.  Bt if it has a higher chance of losing everyone, is it really worth keeping your values?  Probably not. 

I would agree to this; Paragon's keep their values while potentially compromising the mission.  Renegades have a higher change of success.  Likewise Cerberus is doing the best thing to get the job done.
I suppose the question of whether or not Cerberus is bad depend's on your definition of bad.  I say, even if you are saving the galaxy, an evil deed is an evil deed; Cerberus is a bad organization that happens to be working toward one good cause (maybe more, but one main one ).  I will remind you that Cerberus has other goals which are not as good (human supremacy). 

[tywinsregards]

Ahglock wrote...

Commandant Bob wrote...

The question is whether torturing or murdering people is the ONLY way to stop the Reapers. If yes, then Cerberus is justified and not "bad", because they had good intentions.
However, good intentions are only part of what make you good. Trying to find the best way to do things also counts.
For an example, think back to KOTOR... if i see a couple of punks beating up some Ithorian, and my first reaction is to shoot the kids(well, if i could), i would be bad, because i made no effort to find a better way to solve the problem. Likewise, Cerberus should look for alternative methods of problem solving.

When you are talking galactic extinction is it the only way is a bit too high of a standard.  The question is does it improve your chances.  The problem with is it the only way ideas is it is only apparent in 20/20 hindsight.   You go full paragon and win and yopu can say, look I still won and did not sacrifice my beleifs.  That is awesome when it works out, but if you lost saying  I did not sacrifice my beliefs is little consolation to the trillions of lives lost.   Before the event occurs you only have what is my best shot.oh and Commandant Bob they have said they want to advance humanity but not dominate other races, otherwise there wouldnt be other races working for them.

End of ME1 is a perfect exmaple of this.  Go for save everyone like a paragon, or go with the highest shot of victory like a renegade.  Personally I think the paragon way was grossly irresponsible, but everyone is different.  So in ME1 the renegade choice isn't the only way to win, but before oyu make your decisio  you have basically 2 options.  1.  Try to save everyone but have a higher chance of losing everyone.  2.  Sacrifice some but have a higher chance of not losing everyone.  In Me1 I think it was a bit skewed because the sacrifice some was a minute fraction of the total population. 

So when it comes to cerberus action that actually were intended to help in the fight against the reapers. Is it possible to save more people with a different strategy, maybe.  Bt if it has a higher chance of losing everyone, is it really worth keeping your values?  Probably not. 

if u think about it though bioware has kinda always been bad with the whole morality thing. i understood in the KOTOR franchise cuz of the whole jedi/sith thing but even still it was better than mass effect. ME2 greatest flaw is that its far too ambigous with wats right and wrong because it can be takin either way in most cases but its good because it doesnt punish you if thats your belief........ yet. I hope they dont try it in ME3 though.

Modifié par lgeass88, 04 décembre 2010 - 08:23 .

[Aumata]

If Cerberus is evil, then what does that make SPECTER's? The devil himself? Cerberus being fanatics yeah they are indeed. But I'm pretty sure majority if not all of the council species has a program similar to Cerberus. Again hard to say if they are evil.

[Commandant Bob]

That is a good point. However bad Cerberus is, they aren't much worse than STG and the genophage.

[DJBare]

Too much to read through, so someone else may have already made the comparison.

Cerberus is Weylon enterprise, their goal is technonolgy and complete dominance at any costs, that also includes sacrificing their own, the illusive man has no interest or compassion for the colony's lost, he just knows the clues will lead him to extremely valuable information and technology, is Cerberus as an entity evil?, that's something to consider, is the illusive man evil, I have no doubt he is.

[Inverness Moon]

Ahglock wrote...

Code_R wrote...

I guess it depends whether you think torture, experiments and all the rest of their dealings are good or not. The ends don't justify the means, that's why being Paragon is less fun but doesnt stoop to their level, or Sarens level, or whoever... I hope we get to specterise TIMs whole operation in ME3.

The end justifty the means is not an on off proposition.  Yeah normally they don't but at certain scales of danager they do.  Like galactic extinction.

The issue is for much if not most of Cerebus's activities we talk about they had no idea about the galactic extinction so it is irrelevant for the discourse of morality.  The people bringing up the galactic extinction argument for anything in ME1 are basically saying if I went to a day care centre and threw in explosives to kill my nonexistent kids because if I can't have them no one can I'd be a good guy if unknown to me a guy about to set off a bigger bomb which would kill more people was hiding in there and I killed him before he could remote detonate it.  No, I'm still evil but a lucky event just saved some people. 

That isn't a proper analogy. Cerberus did what they did because they predicted a threat to humanity in one form or another that would be serious enough that history would vindicate their actions. The reapers are that threat, but on a much greater scale than they could have imagined.

I just had a thought. I remember from the description of the upcoming Evolution comic centering around the Illusive Man. The descriptions mention: "his adventures force him to be a jack-of-all-trades — part xenobiologist, part intelligence agent, part archaeologist." The keyword here is archaeologist. I'm wondering if he noticed the same patterns Liara did about multiple species rising up and being wiped out in a cycle every 50,000 or so years. It would put an interesting spin on things.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 04 décembre 2010 - 10:15 .

[tywinsregards]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Code_R wrote...

I guess it depends whether you think torture, experiments and all the rest of their dealings are good or not. The ends don't justify the means, that's why being Paragon is less fun but doesnt stoop to their level, or Sarens level, or whoever... I hope we get to specterise TIMs whole operation in ME3.

The end justifty the means is not an on off proposition.  Yeah normally they don't but at certain scales of danager they do.  Like galactic extinction.

The issue is for much if not most of Cerebus's activities we talk about they had no idea about the galactic extinction so it is irrelevant for the discourse of morality.  The people bringing up the galactic extinction argument for anything in ME1 are basically saying if I went to a day care centre and threw in explosives to kill my nonexistent kids because if I can't have them no one can I'd be a good guy if unknown to me a guy about to set off a bigger bomb which would kill more people was hiding in there and I killed him before he could remote detonate it.  No, I'm still evil but a lucky event just saved some people. 

That isn't a proper analogy. Cerberus did what they did because they predicted a threat to humanity in one form or another that would be serious enough that history would vindicate their actions. The reapers are that threat, but on a much greater scale than they could have imagined.

I just had a thought. I remember from the description of the upcoming Evolution comic centering around the Illusive Man. The descriptions mention: "his adventures force him to be a jack-of-all-trades — part xenobiologist, part intelligence agent, part archaeologist." The keyword here is archaeologist. I'm wondering if he noticed the same patterns Liara did about multiple species rising up and being wiped out in a cycle every 50,000 or so years. It would put an interesting spin on things.

That would explain why he is so damn calm about fighting an enemy that destroyed the galaxy a couple times over.

[Soldat13]

Do you consider Robin Hood bad? I know it is far from Cerberus, but Robin Hood did steal from rich to give to poor. Similar to Cerberus to humans. It is an injustice to humans which the citadel does. Thay have done it to other races as well. So I would say that they aren't "bad" but I would say that they are prejudiced and extremists despite what Kelly has to say.

[DJBare]

Soldat13 wrote...

Do you consider Robin Hood bad? I know it is far from Cerberus, but Robin Hood did steal from rich to give to poor. Similar to Cerberus to humans. It is an injustice to humans which the citadel does. Thay have done it to other races as well. So I would say that they aren't "bad" but I would say that they are prejudiced and extremists despite what Kelly has to say.

Robin Hood is a bad analogy, Robin Hood would even let the bad guys live if they did not put up a fight, Cerberus kills anyone if it means gain, oh and lets not forget they turn a blind eye to experiments on children, they know it's happening, they just keep their hands clean of it by denying it officially.

[Elishiva]

yes but in RobbinHood it was the Shirrif of Knotingham that stole that money through out taxing the poor in the frist place.all roobin Hood did if you look outside the box was to give back that money to the very people he took it from and RobinHood did not profit from the misfortunes of others.just a thought to add to your analogy. Your friend Elishiva

[KreeCapt]

After reading the novel Retribution, No doubt they are Bad

[ReiSilver]

Elishiva wrote...

yes but in RobbinHood it was the Shirrif of Knotingham that stole that money through out taxing the poor in the frist place.all roobin Hood did if you look outside the box was to give back that money to the very people he took it from and RobinHood did not profit from the misfortunes of others.just a thought to add to your analogy. Your friend Elishiva

also Robin Hood didn't set bears loose on an village then let the guards who came to investige it get slaughtered by said bears then take the one survivor and keep stabbing him with bear claws so he could look at the claw marks- and yeah Akuse. Oh and those same villagers and guards are the people he claims to protect etc

[Soldat13]

I know it was a bad analogy. I even said it didn't fit. Besides you probably are seeing the "good" robin hood. You think they would just let him steal from him. Robin Hood must have had a lot of blood on his hands as he went to his grave.



I still stand by my analysis that Cerberus isn't BAD just extremist and prejudiced. The only reason why the Illusive Man turned a blind eye was the argument; "The end justifies the means". He saw it as an opportunity to increase humans biotic standing.

[Inverness Moon]

ReiSilver wrote...

Elishiva wrote...

yes but in RobbinHood it was the Shirrif of Knotingham that stole that money through out taxing the poor in the frist place.all roobin Hood did if you look outside the box was to give back that money to the very people he took it from and RobinHood did not profit from the misfortunes of others.just a thought to add to your analogy. Your friend Elishiva

also Robin Hood didn't set bears loose on an village then let the guards who came to investige it get slaughtered by said bears then take the one survivor and keep stabbing him with bear claws so he could look at the claw marks- and yeah Akuse. Oh and those same villagers and guards are the people he claims to protect etc

Your analogy is ridiculous, along with your attempts to simplify what Cerberus has done into something nonsensical as if BioWare would write something nonsensical like that.

[Soldat13]

Inverness Moon wrote...

ReiSilver wrote...

Elishiva wrote...

yes but in RobbinHood it was the Shirrif of Knotingham that stole that money through out taxing the poor in the frist place.all roobin Hood did if you look outside the box was to give back that money to the very people he took it from and RobinHood did not profit from the misfortunes of others.just a thought to add to your analogy. Your friend Elishiva

also Robin Hood didn't set bears loose on an village then let the guards who came to investige it get slaughtered by said bears then take the one survivor and keep stabbing him with bear claws so he could look at the claw marks- and yeah Akuse. Oh and those same villagers and guards are the people he claims to protect etc

Your analogy is ridiculous, along with your attempts to simplify what Cerberus has done into something nonsensical as if BioWare would write something nonsensical like that.

First get a dictionary. "Nonsensical" is not a word. Also as I said I KNEW it was a bad idea.

Now, I just finished watching Law Abiding Citizen and it gave me a better analogy. Is it wrong that Gerard Butler's character wanted to fight the injustice that set the killer of his wife and child free? No it is not bad. Are his methods bad? Yes.

Similar with Cerberus. They aren't bad just their methods are. Their methods are caused because they are extremist and prejudiced. If being prejudiced is bad then everyone is saying that the average WHITE ADULT MALE is bad.

[Ahglock]

Inverness Moon wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Code_R wrote...

I guess it depends whether you think torture, experiments and all the rest of their dealings are good or not. The ends don't justify the means, that's why being Paragon is less fun but doesnt stoop to their level, or Sarens level, or whoever... I hope we get to specterise TIMs whole operation in ME3.

The end justifty the means is not an on off proposition.  Yeah normally they don't but at certain scales of danager they do.  Like galactic extinction.

The issue is for much if not most of Cerebus's activities we talk about they had no idea about the galactic extinction so it is irrelevant for the discourse of morality.  The people bringing up the galactic extinction argument for anything in ME1 are basically saying if I went to a day care centre and threw in explosives to kill my nonexistent kids because if I can't have them no one can I'd be a good guy if unknown to me a guy about to set off a bigger bomb which would kill more people was hiding in there and I killed him before he could remote detonate it.  No, I'm still evil but a lucky event just saved some people. 

That isn't a proper analogy. Cerberus did what they did because they predicted a threat to humanity in one form or another that would be serious enough that history would vindicate their actions. The reapers are that threat, but on a much greater scale than they could have imagined.

I just had a thought. I remember from the description of the upcoming Evolution comic centering around the Illusive Man. The descriptions mention: "his adventures force him to be a jack-of-all-trades — part xenobiologist, part intelligence agent, part archaeologist." The keyword here is archaeologist. I'm wondering if he noticed the same patterns Liara did about multiple species rising up and being wiped out in a cycle every 50,000 or so years. It would put an interesting spin on things.

If it is true he saw the same pattern that would justify some of their actions.  But my impression is until Shepard brought up the reaper menace the only threat to humanity they saw was them not being the dominate race and that does not vindicate their actions. 

[thegreateski]

Yeah, they're bad.



But the Reapers are worse.

[Sidac]

Commandant Bob wrote...

That is a good point. However bad Cerberus is, they aren't much worse than STG and the genophage.

This! You never hear about the Asari Commandos either. Im sure they have done some stuff. however "bad" Cerberus may be, I kind of see it as a necessary evil. I actually like TIM. I like being part of Cerberus and not being held down by political BS.

[incinerator950]

They're as bad as anyone who has to do the dirty work for everyone else.



STG, Spectres, Asari Commando's.



The major difference is they're new on the block, and they're not sanctioned. Which is why the Council throws a real hisey fit when Cerberus pops it's head up..and they're a little over the edge.



Usually what happens when you live by justifying the means for the end results.

[Inverness Moon]

Soldat13 wrote...

First get a dictionary. "Nonsensical" is not a word.

Maybe you should follow your own advice:

Soldat13 wrote...

Also as I said I KNEW it was a bad idea.

Now, I just finished watching Law Abiding Citizen and it gave me a better analogy. Is it wrong that Gerard Butler's character wanted to fight the injustice that set the killer of his wife and child free? No it is not bad. Are his methods bad? Yes.

Similar with Cerberus. They aren't bad just their methods are. Their methods are caused because they are extremist and prejudiced. If being prejudiced is bad then everyone is saying that the average WHITE ADULT MALE is bad.

Well first, I don't know what methods Gerard Butler's character used, so I can't comment on that.

And yes, there are plenty of Cerberus members that are extremist and prejudiced. Though I don't consider morals when deciding how bad Cerberus's methods are, I consider whether or not they save lives in the end. As I mentioned before, whether those methods were necessary for bringing Shepard back to life and what impact they have on the fight against the reapers will determine how bad they are in my eyes.

Because if they were necessary, I'll simply be able to say that if we had adhered to the morals of those who think Cerberus should never have done any of those things, then we'd all be dead right now.

Ahglock wrote...

If it is true he saw the same pattern that would justify some of their actions.  But my impression is until Shepard brought up the reaper menace the only threat to humanity they saw was them not being the dominate race and that does not vindicate their actions. 

Being the dominant race in the galaxy is a means to an end. The end being the protection of humanity's future.

[TheBMT]

 Ive taken the approach of Cerebus is a tool with deep pockets to help fight the ******.  I keep them at arms length, but respect that they have needs too.  But I am not their tool.

[Soldat13]

Interesting I searched the same entry and found nothing. Copy and pasted too.



Now how does ensuring dominance not save lives? Right now Humans are a useful ally that all other races are willing to sweep under the rug. We have only heard of the deaths of humans outside of the Terminus systems. They are ignored. Really I see it as the other races could care less. I'm sure all we would hear about a Human death inside the system as "under investigation" and then forgotten. If humans became important or more dominant then the deaths of said citizens would be investigated and the guilty apprehended. How does that not save lives. A large percentage of the council races and most of the non-council races harbor ill will towards humans. This would save live by getting serial killers apprehended or stopping a unusual anomaly.



I believe that what is necessary should be done. They may have out-stepped the bounds required to do what is necessary but at least they got the job done and are continuing to get the job done. If some must die to save others then so be it. We can't all be knights in shining armor. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty.

[Tennessee88]

In ME1 I thought they were an illogical sinister group of ****s. As of ME2 I have a high respect and an dutifully loyal to them. The ends justify the means to advance humanity into its rightful place, not to mention to save the galaxy. They appear to be the only force willing to do what is necessary to confront the true threats to both humanity and the galaxy. In the end, if they are successful in facilitating a victory against the reapers... well than their past transgressions will be nothing more than a footnote in history. Doesn't mean you have to love who they are or what they have done. But I imagine none of us would truly love or even acknowledge those who keep us safe if they we knew what they did. TIM effectively saved the lives of thousands upon thousands of humans in ME2. Yes they have done terrible things, but they are also working towards the greatest victory... the most righteous crusade the universe has ever seen. TIM's actions in retribution only suggest that he is faithful to defeating the Reapers as he allows both Aria and Anderson to keep the information regarding them.



Killing, destroying, or manipulating the lives of few is worth the lives of all. This goes against my personal beliefs in the real world, but of course I am not faced with the mass extinction of my race and that of dozens of other sentient species.

[DJBare]

Deliberate ignorance will always be a bad thing in my opinion, my characters virtually always have no love for the aliance or cerberus whether the character be good or bad, the aliance tries to remain in blissful ignorance, while on the other hand cerberus fakes ignorance, they may not know exactly whats going on at some of their research facilities but they are more interested in results than method so turn a deliberate blind eye, ignorance at it's worst in my opinion.

Modifié par DJBare, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:11 .

[WandererRTF]

You did notice that the attacks on human colonies happened outside Council/Citadel space. Effectively outside any Citadel or Alliance jurisdiction. The colonists intentionally founded their colonies into the Terminus systems. They wanted to be on their own and that is exactly what they got.

As for why other races are seemingly bit hostile with humans... Might have something to do with how first contact happened, how Alliance knowingly violated Citadel laws after it, how humans drove the batarians away without any sanctions or permits, how Cerberus - formerly official Alliance op - acts openly hostile to alien life...

Never showed any mercy on Cerberus ops in ME1, even shot or allowed Toombs to shoot the sucker in dead scientist case. In ME2 - especially on certain DLC always made sure Cerberus would be on the losing side. Hell take an analogue with Overlord and geth compared to quarians and geth. It seemed Cerberus was on the track on making all the geth hostile to humans. Another 'brilliant' plan...

As for Cerberus... They got what they deserved in Retribution - sadly
the effort did not go all the way. Arrogant human centric bastards is
what Cerberus is. So yes, Cerberus is bad. Though that does not extend through all the organization as it operates in cells. Top level leadership (TIM) is rotten to the core though. Getting the poster boy/girl hero of the battle of the Citadel to 'ally' with them almost seems more like desperate PR stunt than of anything else.