They aren't exactly Lawful either, though. On the lawful/chaotic axis, they're neutral in that respect as well: a neutral person follows laws until they get in the way, at which point they ignore them, and that's pretty much what the Council does (the genophage mk. 2, the Spectres). Neutral players aren't against laws, but they don't bind themselves to them either.AdmiralCheez wrote...
Hence my labeling them as "Lawful Neutral."Dean_the_Young wrote...
Never said they were. But they aren't 'really good', or even 'pretty good', or even good.
Is the Council really good?
Débuté par
Arijharn
, févr. 07 2011 08:12
#51
Posté 07 février 2011 - 07:26
Dean_the_Young
-
- Members
- 20 676 messages
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 07 février 2011 - 07:27
General User
-
- Members
- 3 315 messages
Something that has always bothered me about Ekuna, that is: the Council was unwilling to commit their fleet to help human colonies in ME1 or ME2 for fear of antagonizing the Terminus, but they were more than willing to wave their fleet right under the Terminus’ nose to evict a few quarian squatters. Wad’up wit dat!?!
Also, I think comparing the Spectres to Judge Dredd is a bit unfair to His Honor. The Spectres aren’t sworn to uphold the law and anything like that, they are sworn to the service of the Council. Better in my mind to liken them to mafia enforcers, who’s only duty is to preserve their boss’s authority.
I say the overriding theme of Council policy isn’t even stability exactly, it’s maintaining their own power.
Also, I think comparing the Spectres to Judge Dredd is a bit unfair to His Honor. The Spectres aren’t sworn to uphold the law and anything like that, they are sworn to the service of the Council. Better in my mind to liken them to mafia enforcers, who’s only duty is to preserve their boss’s authority.
I say the overriding theme of Council policy isn’t even stability exactly, it’s maintaining their own power.
Modifié par General User, 07 février 2011 - 07:29 .
#53
Posté 07 février 2011 - 07:29
AdmiralCheez
-
- Members
- 12 990 messages
True, but they are more lawful than not lawful, as they'd rather avoid breaking the rules as much as possible, but would do so if it offers the best solution. Like 75% lawful.Dean_the_Young wrote...
They aren't exactly Lawful either, though. On the lawful/chaotic axis, they're neutral in that respect as well: a neutral person follows laws until they get in the way, at which point they ignore them, and that's pretty much what the Council does (the genophage mk. 2, the Spectres). Neutral players aren't against laws, but they don't bind themselves to them either.
#54
Posté 07 février 2011 - 07:29
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
I think TIM and the Council are similar in one respect:
With the Collector Base, TIM says ''Cerberus IS humanity'' or something to that effect.
I'm sure the Council would say ''The Council IS the galaxy''.
With the Collector Base, TIM says ''Cerberus IS humanity'' or something to that effect.
I'm sure the Council would say ''The Council IS the galaxy''.
#55
Posté 07 février 2011 - 07:30
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
AdmiralCheez wrote...
True, but they are more lawful than not lawful, as they'd rather avoid breaking the rules as much as possible, but would do so if it offers the best solution. Like 75% lawful.
That's just being utilitarian. Follow the law unless it's more convenient to break it.
#56
Guest_iOnlySignIn_*
Posté 07 février 2011 - 07:34
Guest_iOnlySignIn_*
Guest_iOnlySignIn_*
-
- Guests
Doesn't every governing political body do that? It's a Darwinian instinct.General User wrote...
I say the overriding theme of Council policy isn’t even stability exactly, it’s maintaining their own power.
I agree. I'm a Neutral/Neutral player and I agree with most of the things the Council does (from their POV, of course).Dean_the_Young wrote...
They aren't exactly Lawful either, though. On the lawful/chaotic axis, they're neutral in that respect as well: a neutral person follows laws until they get in the way, at which point they ignore them, and that's pretty much what the Council does (the genophage mk. 2, the Spectres). Neutral players aren't against laws, but they don't bind themselves to them either.
Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 07 février 2011 - 07:36 .
#57
Posté 07 février 2011 - 07:55
AdmiralCheez
-
- Members
- 12 990 messages
By that right, isn't every powerful politician neutral, since they can simply change the law if they don't like it?In Exile wrote...
That's just being utilitarian. Follow the law unless it's more convenient to break it.
Kind of hard to classify these bastards, isn't it?
Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 07 février 2011 - 07:56 .
#58
Posté 07 février 2011 - 08:48
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
AdmiralCheez wrote...
By that right, isn't every powerful politician neutral, since they can simply change the law if they don't like it?
Kind of hard to classify these bastards, isn't it?
If you're just being self-interested, yeah. Our politicians, though, have to put up with other politicians who might want different things in big numbers. That's basically a democracy for you. The Council is almost autocratic. They don't answer to anyone at all. Is there even a process to remove a Councillor once named?
#59
Posté 07 février 2011 - 08:55
Barquiel
-
- Members
- 5 848 messages
In Exile wrote...
The Council is almost autocratic. They don't answer to anyone at all. Is there even a process to remove a Councillor once named?
They answer to their respective governments.
#60
Posté 07 février 2011 - 09:14
OmegaXI
-
- Members
- 997 messages
They only thing the council is good for is cannon fodder, that was true in Mass Effect 1 and that will be true for the former council races in mass effect 3. I'm hoping for the option on putting them on trail (in the games I let them survive) for all the human lives lost because of their sand bagging. My cannon shepard was a paragon in ME1 and saved them, after seeing how much they dropped the ball in ME2 he became a renegade.
#61
Posté 07 février 2011 - 09:21
MercenaryRQ
-
- Members
- 24 messages
OmegaXI wrote...
They only thing the council is good for is cannon fodder, that was true in Mass Effect 1 and that will be true for the former council races in mass effect 3. I'm hoping for the option on putting them on trail (in the games I let them survive) for all the human lives lost because of their sand bagging. My cannon shepard was a paragon in ME1 and saved them, after seeing how much they dropped the ball in ME2 he became a renegade.
love the part when shep tells them where to shove their help
#62
Posté 07 février 2011 - 09:25
OmegaXI
-
- Members
- 997 messages
MercenaryRQ wrote...
OmegaXI wrote...
They only thing the council is good for is cannon fodder, that was true in Mass Effect 1 and that will be true for the former council races in mass effect 3. I'm hoping for the option on putting them on trail (in the games I let them survive) for all the human lives lost because of their sand bagging. My cannon shepard was a paragon in ME1 and saved them, after seeing how much they dropped the ball in ME2 he became a renegade.
love the part when shep tells them where to shove their help
Agreed it was worth every human life lost to save them.
#63
Posté 07 février 2011 - 09:25
James2912
-
- Members
- 1 339 messages
OmegaXI wrote...
They only thing the council is good for is cannon fodder, that was true in Mass Effect 1 and that will be true for the former council races in mass effect 3. I'm hoping for the option on putting them on trail (in the games I let them survive) for all the human lives lost because of their sand bagging. My cannon shepard was a paragon in ME1 and saved them, after seeing how much they dropped the ball in ME2 he became a renegade.
Thats cool that you played that way! I'm doing the same. I think it would be very natural for a person to react that way. Paragon Shep basically did everything he could right and was screwed in ME2 all the idealistic delusions go out the window.
#64
Posté 07 février 2011 - 09:32
Terraneaux
-
- Members
- 1 123 messages
The council's patently obvious self-interest does make out paragon characters to be a bit like tools, I agree. When you get down to it, unless you're an asari or salarian, the council doesn't have your interests in mind. Too bad the Batarians and humans have so much enmity, as those two races working against the council, possible also with the Quarians, could form their own opposition faction somewhat readily.
#65
Posté 07 février 2011 - 09:35
Pro_Consul
-
- Members
- 481 messages
James2912 wrote...
Thats cool that you played that way! I'm doing the same. I think it would be very natural for a person to react that way. Paragon Shep basically did everything he could right and was screwed in ME2 all the idealistic delusions go out the window.
That was also how I played my first time through ME2. And by the end of ME2 I was completely fed up with TIM and his double-dealing, so even though I was playing renegade I still told him to follow or get out the way, cuz I was taking the lead from now on. So in ME3 my Shep is making his own choices without any concern at all for what the Council or TIM think about it.
#66
Posté 07 février 2011 - 09:36
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
Terraneaux wrote...
The council's patently obvious self-interest does make out paragon characters to be a bit like tools, I agree. When you get down to it, unless you're an asari or salarian, the council doesn't have your interests in mind. Too bad the Batarians and humans have so much enmity, as those two races working against the council, possible also with the Quarians, could form their own opposition faction somewhat readily.
Why would Humanity want to oppose the Council? The Council has been incredibly accomodating to them in the few decades since first contact.
#67
Posté 07 février 2011 - 09:36
OmegaXI
-
- Members
- 997 messages
James2912 wrote...
OmegaXI wrote...
They only thing the council is good for is cannon fodder, that was true in Mass Effect 1 and that will be true for the former council races in mass effect 3. I'm hoping for the option on putting them on trail (in the games I let them survive) for all the human lives lost because of their sand bagging. My cannon shepard was a paragon in ME1 and saved them, after seeing how much they dropped the ball in ME2 he became a renegade.
Thats cool that you played that way! I'm doing the same. I think it would be very natural for a person to react that way. Paragon Shep basically did everything he could right and was screwed in ME2 all the idealistic delusions go out the window.
As soon as the council said they didn't buy the whole reaper threat thing I was like WTF!!! And that turned my paragon shepard into a vendictive renegade. Then the whole Ashley thing on horizon nearly drove him mad, so there was my Shepard sold up the river by those he save and those he loved, and he had a perfect outlet for that anger-anyone who got in his way and the collectors. Garrus approved, Tali went with it and nothing was going to stand in his way. Hell even Jack said she could take notes from me, which was the point that I started tto draw back a little.
Modifié par OmegaXI, 07 février 2011 - 10:23 .
#68
Posté 07 février 2011 - 09:37
OmegaXI
-
- Members
- 997 messages
Pro_Consul wrote...
James2912 wrote...
Thats cool that you played that way! I'm doing the same. I think it would be very natural for a person to react that way. Paragon Shep basically did everything he could right and was screwed in ME2 all the idealistic delusions go out the window.
That was also how I played my first time through ME2. And by the end of ME2 I was completely fed up with TIM and his double-dealing, so even though I was playing renegade I still told him to follow or get out the way, cuz I was taking the lead from now on. So in ME3 my Shep is making his own choices without any concern at all for what the Council or TIM think about it.
This
#69
Posté 07 février 2011 - 10:31
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
[quote]Arijharn wrote...
I ask this question because it seems that the majority of people who are anti-Cerberus are completely pro-Council, and I feel that this is a baffling position to take and here's my thought process, bear in mind however that some of my issues with the Council are 'half-formed' if only because I don't have information to the contrary.[/quote]
Not all of us are completely pro council
Note that the Council being less than perfect doesn't justify an 'anything goes' approach.
[quote]1. AI research is Illegal
From what I have heard, the Council had declared AI research to be illegal well in advance to the Quarian's deciding to build the Geth, and any companies/nations discovered to be building AI platforms (without their explicit permission; like Synthetic Insights) seems to be quite perplexing. Their actions against this research means that any device of synthetic intelligence (or Artificial Intelligence) is essentially summarily executed, and is an enforced repression on an intelligence.[/quote]
As has been said, it is uncertain when the laws were put into place. It could be that Tali (who isn't 300 years old) simply has a false understanding of history. It is also not clear whether actual AI's themselves are 'illegal.' The Council certainly didn't seem to think the Geth were illegal to the degree one might expect.
Also, controlled research is legal, the same way controlled research into viruses is legal, including research of weapons grade viruses.
[quote]Granted, pretty much every AI that we've met have tried to kill us, but to paraphrase Admiral Koris: "Of course [they do], we kill them."[/quote]
EDI hasn't.. at least not yet Also Vigil may have been AI rather than VI....
[quote]2. 'Old Boys' club(paragon only)
There is still, despite the Alliance's ascendence into the ranks of the Citadel Council, a power clique against Humanity. This is demonstrated during the events of ME2 where Councillor Anderson requests 'increased access to the Council's space tracking network.' Why doesn't the Alliance, already a member of the Council, have this?[/quote]
We are a foreign power. How should they react to us? Should your country enter all trade and territorial negotiations looking out for its neighbors above itself? They should be careful how much they push, and actually negotiate, but that doesn't mean they should roll over for every new neighbor either.
That includes the Alliance after becoming a Council member. Keep in mind we don't see the politics between the other 'big three.' It is not a given that they all simply do whatever any one of them wants. Certainly it seems like the STG's are not given full respect either, or else the use of the nuke on Vermire would have been questioned less.
[quote]3. The Quarian/Geth conflict
The Quarian's were an associate species that seemed (at least by hindsight) to have been on the cusp of member status themselves considering their technological proficiency, the number of colonies they're implied to of had and the volume of ships they have when they were forced to run (with presumably sufficient naval assets to remain even after being evicted from their home system to protect themselves against mercenaries etc).
What exactly are the rights and responsibilities do the Council have? Presumably the council started off somewhat as a way to promote trade between species, and slowly due to the effect of pirates, they must of needed to protect themselves to some degree in order to later legalise a Turian led fleet that operates in the Council's name.
What I'm getting at is this: The Council must have deliberately not involved themselves with the Quarian quarrel (har har harrrr) even though the AI threat is supposedly a serious threat for the Council, and despite the fact that the Quarian's probably deserved the support of their allies, even if they weren't able to be supported by the 'Council' as is simply because non Quarian's also died in the conflict (Erinya's bondmate for example.)[/quote]
The Quarians only had ambassador status, and it is not clear how long the war actually lasted, or the Council's level of readiness. The council may simply have not been in a position to act in time.
And they didn't do 'nothing.' They did send envoys and did patrol the border. They didn't attempt a counter-invasion, but how many council citizens should have laid down their lives trying to reverse the results of a war that seemed decisively over?
[quote]4. The Genophage
The Genophage was declared retroactively illegal after it's deployment by a guilty conscience Citadel Council. It would be classed as a TIER II type weapon:
[quote]src: http://masseffect.wi...del_Conventions
TIER II: Uncontrolled self-replicating weapons, such as nanotechnology, viral or bacteriological organisms, "Von Neumann devices", and destructive computer viruses. These weapons can lie dormant for millennia, waiting for a careless visitor to carry them on to another world.
[/quote]
Presumably; the scientists responsible for working on the Genophage (whether it was 'justified' or not is actually irrelevant) did not suffer censure. The most amazing thing about it though is that the Citadel Council implicitly or explicitly sanctioned the deployment of the Genophage 2.0 despite it's illegality.[/quote]
'Retroactive illegality' is problematic. It is a contradiction in terms. You are also assuming that the Council even knew of 2.0. The STG's are not an arm of the Council, but of the Salarians. More importantly, it isn't 'uncontrolled' the Salarians are obviously actively monitoring and maintaining it. If anything, they are making sure that the original genophage conforms to the new law.
[quote]5. Spectres
The Spectre's themselves can not be considered a force of good if they are tasked with vast descretionary powers. Each Spectre is a judge, jury and executioner (queue mental images of Judge Dredd) and typically 'answer' to the Council. However, if what Tela Vasir says is true, the problem is that the Council frequently doesn't ask the 'questions' in the first place. They aren't accountable because the Council doesn't generally hold them to account.[/quote]
The lack of accountability is a major issue here. And actually the main reason they aren't held to account is that the Council doesn't provide proper oversight. The Council are definately in the wrong here.
[quote]6. Ekuna
The Quarian's may have erred somewhat in not 'deigning' to immediately notify the Council of their intent to settle the world prior to settling it, but the Council a) Failed to show compassion to one of their associate species (or former associate species) that are fleeing the catastrophe that was the homeworld (even if it was one of their own making)
Forced an eviction by threatening planetary bombardment and c) Awarded it to the Elcor seemingly just to spite the Quarian's.[/quote]
Pardon, but hadn't the world had already been promised to the Elcor? it is a HIGH GRAVITY world, and I am not sure why the Quarians would have considered it suitable. It didn't seem like the Quarians were settling so much as saying 'we don't care whose space this is in or what your plans for it are, we are taking it."
[quote]7. The Krogan Rebellions
Ever found it odd that conveniently the Krogan Rebellions only became the Krogan Rebellions until after the Krogan attacked an Asari colony world? This is despite their actions on other associate species homeworld's (and no doubt the petitioning those species did to the Council). I'd hate to risk invoking Godwin's law this early, but to me it makes me think somewhat of Europe's appeasement to **** Germany before the war broke out (I'm guessing then that this parallel was deliberate).[/quote]
I didn't think we knew that much about the details of the war, but again, it does take time to mobilize. The Council should have seen this coming though. The degree to which they emulate Chamberlain is astounding. As for appeasement, it is worth pointing out though that the Krogan were the heroes of the Rachni war, not the agressors of WWI.
[quote]8. Medi-gel
You may wonder why I include this because the substance is highly useful, but lets face it, it's still (technically) illegal because it contravenes laws under genetic engineering. Personally I think this is a triumph of common sense over bureaucracy, but it's still (technically) a falling of the Council and it's ability to enforce laws (unless they gave Sirta Foundation a 'license' to produce their product in the same way they gave Synthetic Insights a license to pursue Artificial Intelligence, but I don't think it would be possible for the Council to give the 'license' because they don't actually own Medi-Gel if you know what I mean).[/quote]
It is technically illegal, but have you seen that law enforced anywhere? It is used on the Citadel, including by C-sec. Everyone uses it. There are still laws on the books in RL relating to the days of the horse and buggy that are long since not applicable. "Legacy legislation' is a historical footnote, not something to hold against any given government.
It is illegal in some RL jurisdictions to have drapes in your windows because they were once a fire hazard. Are those jurisdictions 'evil' for not enforcing that law? How about jaywalking? How much effort should be put into enforcing that, especially on quiet residential streets? Talk about non-issues....
I ask this question because it seems that the majority of people who are anti-Cerberus are completely pro-Council, and I feel that this is a baffling position to take and here's my thought process, bear in mind however that some of my issues with the Council are 'half-formed' if only because I don't have information to the contrary.[/quote]
Not all of us are completely pro council
Note that the Council being less than perfect doesn't justify an 'anything goes' approach.
[quote]1. AI research is Illegal
From what I have heard, the Council had declared AI research to be illegal well in advance to the Quarian's deciding to build the Geth, and any companies/nations discovered to be building AI platforms (without their explicit permission; like Synthetic Insights) seems to be quite perplexing. Their actions against this research means that any device of synthetic intelligence (or Artificial Intelligence) is essentially summarily executed, and is an enforced repression on an intelligence.[/quote]
As has been said, it is uncertain when the laws were put into place. It could be that Tali (who isn't 300 years old) simply has a false understanding of history. It is also not clear whether actual AI's themselves are 'illegal.' The Council certainly didn't seem to think the Geth were illegal to the degree one might expect.
Also, controlled research is legal, the same way controlled research into viruses is legal, including research of weapons grade viruses.
[quote]Granted, pretty much every AI that we've met have tried to kill us, but to paraphrase Admiral Koris: "Of course [they do], we kill them."[/quote]
EDI hasn't.. at least not yet
Also Vigil may have been AI rather than VI.... [quote]2. 'Old Boys' club(paragon only)
There is still, despite the Alliance's ascendence into the ranks of the Citadel Council, a power clique against Humanity. This is demonstrated during the events of ME2 where Councillor Anderson requests 'increased access to the Council's space tracking network.' Why doesn't the Alliance, already a member of the Council, have this?[/quote]
We are a foreign power. How should they react to us? Should your country enter all trade and territorial negotiations looking out for its neighbors above itself? They should be careful how much they push, and actually negotiate, but that doesn't mean they should roll over for every new neighbor either.
That includes the Alliance after becoming a Council member. Keep in mind we don't see the politics between the other 'big three.' It is not a given that they all simply do whatever any one of them wants. Certainly it seems like the STG's are not given full respect either, or else the use of the nuke on Vermire would have been questioned less.
[quote]3. The Quarian/Geth conflict
The Quarian's were an associate species that seemed (at least by hindsight) to have been on the cusp of member status themselves considering their technological proficiency, the number of colonies they're implied to of had and the volume of ships they have when they were forced to run (with presumably sufficient naval assets to remain even after being evicted from their home system to protect themselves against mercenaries etc).
What exactly are the rights and responsibilities do the Council have? Presumably the council started off somewhat as a way to promote trade between species, and slowly due to the effect of pirates, they must of needed to protect themselves to some degree in order to later legalise a Turian led fleet that operates in the Council's name.
What I'm getting at is this: The Council must have deliberately not involved themselves with the Quarian quarrel (har har harrrr) even though the AI threat is supposedly a serious threat for the Council, and despite the fact that the Quarian's probably deserved the support of their allies, even if they weren't able to be supported by the 'Council' as is simply because non Quarian's also died in the conflict (Erinya's bondmate for example.)[/quote]
The Quarians only had ambassador status, and it is not clear how long the war actually lasted, or the Council's level of readiness. The council may simply have not been in a position to act in time.
And they didn't do 'nothing.' They did send envoys and did patrol the border. They didn't attempt a counter-invasion, but how many council citizens should have laid down their lives trying to reverse the results of a war that seemed decisively over?
[quote]4. The Genophage
The Genophage was declared retroactively illegal after it's deployment by a guilty conscience Citadel Council. It would be classed as a TIER II type weapon:
[quote]src: http://masseffect.wi...del_Conventions
TIER II: Uncontrolled self-replicating weapons, such as nanotechnology, viral or bacteriological organisms, "Von Neumann devices", and destructive computer viruses. These weapons can lie dormant for millennia, waiting for a careless visitor to carry them on to another world.
[/quote]
Presumably; the scientists responsible for working on the Genophage (whether it was 'justified' or not is actually irrelevant) did not suffer censure. The most amazing thing about it though is that the Citadel Council implicitly or explicitly sanctioned the deployment of the Genophage 2.0 despite it's illegality.[/quote]
'Retroactive illegality' is problematic. It is a contradiction in terms. You are also assuming that the Council even knew of 2.0. The STG's are not an arm of the Council, but of the Salarians. More importantly, it isn't 'uncontrolled' the Salarians are obviously actively monitoring and maintaining it. If anything, they are making sure that the original genophage conforms to the new law.
[quote]5. Spectres
The Spectre's themselves can not be considered a force of good if they are tasked with vast descretionary powers. Each Spectre is a judge, jury and executioner (queue mental images of Judge Dredd) and typically 'answer' to the Council. However, if what Tela Vasir says is true, the problem is that the Council frequently doesn't ask the 'questions' in the first place. They aren't accountable because the Council doesn't generally hold them to account.[/quote]
The lack of accountability is a major issue here. And actually the main reason they aren't held to account is that the Council doesn't provide proper oversight. The Council are definately in the wrong here.
[quote]6. Ekuna
The Quarian's may have erred somewhat in not 'deigning' to immediately notify the Council of their intent to settle the world prior to settling it, but the Council a) Failed to show compassion to one of their associate species (or former associate species) that are fleeing the catastrophe that was the homeworld (even if it was one of their own making)
Forced an eviction by threatening planetary bombardment and c) Awarded it to the Elcor seemingly just to spite the Quarian's.[/quote]Pardon, but hadn't the world had already been promised to the Elcor? it is a HIGH GRAVITY world, and I am not sure why the Quarians would have considered it suitable. It didn't seem like the Quarians were settling so much as saying 'we don't care whose space this is in or what your plans for it are, we are taking it."
[quote]7. The Krogan Rebellions
Ever found it odd that conveniently the Krogan Rebellions only became the Krogan Rebellions until after the Krogan attacked an Asari colony world? This is despite their actions on other associate species homeworld's (and no doubt the petitioning those species did to the Council). I'd hate to risk invoking Godwin's law this early, but to me it makes me think somewhat of Europe's appeasement to **** Germany before the war broke out (I'm guessing then that this parallel was deliberate).[/quote]
I didn't think we knew that much about the details of the war, but again, it does take time to mobilize. The Council should have seen this coming though. The degree to which they emulate Chamberlain is astounding. As for appeasement, it is worth pointing out though that the Krogan were the heroes of the Rachni war, not the agressors of WWI.
[quote]8. Medi-gel
You may wonder why I include this because the substance is highly useful, but lets face it, it's still (technically) illegal because it contravenes laws under genetic engineering. Personally I think this is a triumph of common sense over bureaucracy, but it's still (technically) a falling of the Council and it's ability to enforce laws (unless they gave Sirta Foundation a 'license' to produce their product in the same way they gave Synthetic Insights a license to pursue Artificial Intelligence, but I don't think it would be possible for the Council to give the 'license' because they don't actually own Medi-Gel if you know what I mean).[/quote]
It is technically illegal, but have you seen that law enforced anywhere? It is used on the Citadel, including by C-sec. Everyone uses it. There are still laws on the books in RL relating to the days of the horse and buggy that are long since not applicable. "Legacy legislation' is a historical footnote, not something to hold against any given government.
It is illegal in some RL jurisdictions to have drapes in your windows because they were once a fire hazard. Are those jurisdictions 'evil' for not enforcing that law? How about jaywalking? How much effort should be put into enforcing that, especially on quiet residential streets? Talk about non-issues....
#70
Posté 07 février 2011 - 11:19
General User
-
- Members
- 3 315 messages
iOnlySignIn wrote...
Doesn't every governing political body do that? It's a Darwinian instinct.General User wrote...
I say the overriding theme of Council policy isn’t even stability exactly, it’s maintaining their own power.
That’s true, to a greater or lesser extent. Though I think it’s fairly obvious that some governments do a better job at adhering to the ‘higher ideals’ their respective societies profess than others.
In the Council’s defense (did I really just write that?
), I don’t recall any point where they themselves profess to uphold to anything other than their own power.
#71
Posté 07 février 2011 - 11:27
Terraneaux
-
- Members
- 1 123 messages
Wulfram wrote...
Terraneaux wrote...
The council's patently obvious self-interest does make out paragon characters to be a bit like tools, I agree. When you get down to it, unless you're an asari or salarian, the council doesn't have your interests in mind. Too bad the Batarians and humans have so much enmity, as those two races working against the council, possible also with the Quarians, could form their own opposition faction somewhat readily.
Why would Humanity want to oppose the Council? The Council has been incredibly accomodating to them in the few decades since first contact.
Their history of throwing other races under the bus to acheive their own goals. If Sovereign hadn't shown up, the Turians were going to be next, with Humans getting their turn as the hired goons for the asari and turians for a while, before someone new comes along.
#72
Posté 07 février 2011 - 11:30
James2912
-
- Members
- 1 339 messages
We are tools to them nothing more. I don't know about everybody else but I don't like the idea just being a tool for aliens.
#73
Posté 07 février 2011 - 11:34
Barquiel
-
- Members
- 5 848 messages
Modifié par Barquiel, 07 février 2011 - 11:40 .
#74
Posté 07 février 2011 - 11:35
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
Their history of throwing other races under the bus to acheive their own goals. If Sovereign hadn't shown up, the Turians were going to be next, with Humans getting their turn as the hired goons for the asari and turians for a while, before someone new comes along.
Pardon, but the Asari had ships at the battle of the Citadel, and the treaty limiting fleet strength is a balancing plan.... It is the Turians wanting more DN's to compensate for superior Asari diplomacy and Salarian espionage.
And you figure that not letting the Krogan overrun them was 'throwing the Krogan under the bus?" Stopping a bus that is set to ram your house isn't thowing the driver under it.....
#75
Posté 07 février 2011 - 11:43
Wulfram
-
- Members
- 18 948 messages
Terraneaux wrote...
Their history of throwing other races under the bus to acheive their own goals. If Sovereign hadn't shown up, the Turians were going to be next, with Humans getting their turn as the hired goons for the asari and turians for a while, before someone new comes along.
There is no such history. The Krogans attacked them.
Plus, allying with the weak Batarians and a rag tag fleet of Quarians against the 3 great powers of the galaxy doesn't seem like a very sensible plan. If you really wanted to bring the council down, you'd need to split it and get at least one of the major powers on your side.
