Aller au contenu

Photo

The confrontation with the Illusive Man will be the best part of Mass Effect 3

Débuté par PsychoWARD23 , avril 09 2011 07:05

  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
111 réponses à ce sujet

#101
TobyHasEyes
Posté 10 avril 2011 - 04:07

TobyHasEyes
  • Members
  • 1 109 messages

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Am not trying to goad you or anyone, but could you give some examples of the Council treating people like crap


Okay, first they uplift an innocent species to serve as cannon fodder in a war. Later when that species, which was not ready for interstellar civilization, becomes a problem the Council nearly drives them to extinction too. Look at it from the krogan perspective. They got completely screwed because of the Councils medling.

Centuries later when the geth turn on their creators and the quarians are being killed in the tens of billions, their entire civilization being eradicated, the Council does nothing. Despite knowing and observing the danger the geth present, the Council is content to let the quarians be eradicated then to discriminate against the survivors. The quarians too are on the brink of extinction.

This policy in addition to cruel, was stupid. A.I. were already outlawed because of the danger yet the Council was unwilling to confront the threat. They should have destroyed the geth 300 years ago instead of letting them develop in secrecy beyond the capability of anyone to control. Look at how that paid off.

Some time later we have the batarians, who petitioned the Council to stop the humans from colonizing a region already claimed by them. The Council however had no use for the batarians since the humans were stronger. So the batarians got screwed.

When the geth invaded the Traverse and began attacking human colonies did the Council take action? No, they refused to do anything and undermined the investigation into Saren. They wouldn't sen the fleet and indeed tried to blame humanity for the situation. They repeated this line when the Collectors attacked our colonies.

As others have pointed out the Council also maintains control with the Spectres. The Spectres are secret agents with no accountability and the right to violate the civil liberties of any citizen who gets in their way or is an inconvenience. The only people who control them are the Councilor's themselves, which makes them private enforcers, not agents of the law.

Spectres are ruthless murderers. Saren is the perfect example of this. He was their golden boy for decades and his reputation was well known. The Council simply didn't care. All the Council cares about when it comes to Spectres is that they get results. Therefore they sanction the brutalitly Spectres perpetuate.

Furthermore, consider the Council's justifications for the races under its control and in its ranks. They say that only a race with a large and formidable military can meet the responsbilities of membership. However at the same time the Council outlaws such militar-strength with the Treaty of Farixen and considers any race that tries to build up its military to be "rogue". If you play by the Council's rules you will never be one of them because the rules are designed to keep others out. That's why in 3000 years of history the volus are still not members, despite making immense contributions to the galaxy.


So my point is, they are not better than us or anyone else. The Council just has the luxury of being at the top of the food chain because they were in the right place at the right time. As far as I'm concerned that gives us the right to assume the same kind of dominance they have. They aren't entitled it, nobody is.


 I will preface this by saying that I was referring to the Council as it is now, so a trawl through their history doesn't actually address their positioning in the Mass Effect timeline. Furthermore I think that through their history lessons have been learnt, and new treaties have been made, which protect the galaxy from further catastophes

 - I agree that it was wrong to uplift the Krogans, as we are told they were not culturally ready to face the galaxy; that does seem a reasonable explanation. I will say however that it is described as a Salarian action, not 'Council meddling'

 - Firstly, it was a suprise even to the Quarians that the geth were an A.I, due to the whole network intelligence thing, and they are mechanical genius', so I don't think your claim that the Council was unwilling to tackle a threat fits; nobody was aware they were a threat. Secondly, this can be debated, but we do know the Quarians struck first, and the geth rebelled. As such I wouldn't be hasty to take sides. I would say the Council should have helped the Quarians to leave, if possible, and then negotiated. So I agree that it wasn't a correct decision there, and in that instance denying the Quarians an embassy does seem like treating them like crap

 - We do not know how significant the "claims" the Batarians had were, but we do know that they retained an embassy and Council status despite attacking a number of Council races planets. The Council stated that uncolonised planets in an area of the galaxy nobody lays real claim to should be fair game.. seems reasonable to me, certainly not biased against the Batarians.

 - The Council states that humans were made aware of the risks of colonising in the Attican Traverse, no doubt why other races had not chosen to colonise there. This cannot be read as a bias against one race, unless you don't believe the Council when they state that this is the case. It is the consequences of humanity being warned against making risky decisions and then making them

 - We do not know what the criteria are that the Council places on limiting the Spectre's actions, so not much can be said either way. However it is fair to say that every Council race had to agree to the role of the Spectre's, which means the representative's of each race accept their infringements of civil liberties as acceptable. In this instance, they represent authority by consent as much as any police.

 - The volus have an embassy. I will grant that there is a military element to the Council status; you have to have the means to aid in galactic security (I'll accept that is a change from my previous position). The volus are protected for their services, and have done well out of their position.

 I am not trying to argue a point for the sake of keeping face, so I will concede that the list you have made contains a LOT of actions which are debatable morally. I don't think every decision they have taken is wholly defendable.

 What I will say is this. I read your point as being that you don't believe the motive of the Council is to act in the interests of  the galaxy, rather in their own interests. I don't think the decisions detailed above in any way suggest that is the case. The worst moral decisions in their history can still be seen as attempts to maintain galactic security, and to protect those races who intend to live co-operatively.

 In a thread discussing the Illusive Man, the point was that I don;t see the aims of Cerberus as being justified or his actions legitimate. They would be if no other species' could be trusted, and that their actions (whether intentionally or not) would harm humanity to such an extent that it trumps the rest of the galaxy. Lets not forget TIM wants human dominance, not merely the toppling of the Council

#102
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 10 avril 2011 - 04:37

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests
[quote]TobyHasEyes wrote...

 I will preface this by saying that I was referring to the Council as it is now, so a trawl through their history doesn't actually address their positioning in the Mass Effect timeline.[/quote]

How does it not? History is part of the timeline. Regardless, their recent actions with the last two games are quite heinous as it is. Discount the history if you want, it doens't matter.

[quote]TobyHasEyes wrote...

Furthermore I think that through their history lessons have been learnt, and new treaties have been made, which protect the galaxy from further catastophes.[/quote]

Like they protected it from the geth, the Collectors, the batarians, and the Reapers? The galaxy can't protect anybody, not even itself. Their time is done. Good riddance, I say.


Moving on, if the Council used the krogan in their war against the rachni then the Council sanctioned the salarians' actions. They can't just deny all culpability. If TIM is to be blamed for operatives who go rogue then so too is the Council responsible for the actions of its member states and agents.

Whether anybody prediced if th geth would become a problem or not is irrelevant, as is whether or not the quarians attacked first. The Council still did nothing as an entire sentient species, an ally, mind you, was utterly wiped out by hostile machines. At this point the Council damn well knew the threat and if they'd been willing to do their supposed duty they'd have intervened and ended the conflict. Doing so would have saved millions, perhaps billions, of quarian lives and could have even saved the geth. With the geth forced to surrender they could be integrated into the galactic community instead of left in isolation and permitted to be violent, xenophobic, and unpredictable.

I repeat, the Council knew already that A.I. were fundamentally dangerous. With that knowledge the only sensible course of action when the geth become violent is to terminate them as a threat. That can mean destroying them completely or destroying their ability to make war. There is no excuse to do nothing. Doing nothing permits the grow stronger and far beyond the ability of any organic race to tame. It was a bad move, period.

 [quote]TobyHasEyes wrote...

- ...seems reasonable to me, certainly not biased against the Batarians.[/quote]

I told you to look at it from the batarian perspective. They needed those worlds badly but didn't have the power to fight the humans for them. That's why they went to the Council. You know, that lofty group that sets itself up as the galaxy's leader and mediator? The Council turned a deaf ear. Survival of the fittest, that is how the Council operates.

Humanity was encouraged to settle the Attican Traverse. That or Anderson is a liar. The Council wanted us to colonize the region so  that we could stabilize. They weren't willing to help because they didn't want to spend the time or effort and because humanity being forced to deal with all the trouble there would hamper their ability to grow and challenge the Council's power. I'd wager that when the geth attacked (you know, that incredibly dangerous race of A.I.'s the Council refuses to deal with who launched an unprecedented invasion of the rest of the galaxy?) the Council was pleased to watch the geth scorch human worlds because humanity became weaker as a result. That's just my theory though.

The hard fact is that the Council binds our military to its treaties. The implicit agreement when we sign those treaties is that the Council will make up for our reduced forces with forces of their own. After all, that is why the Coucnil claims it maintains these fleets in the first place. Instead whenever an ally tries to ask the Council for help the Council ignores them. At this point there is no reason for anybody to follow the Treaty of Farixen. It is useless.

 [quote]TobyHasEyes wrote...

- We do not know what the criteria are that the Council places on limiting the Spectre's actions...[/quote]

Yes we do and that criteria is NONE!

"Get the job done," that's all they care about. That's why Saren was their favorite. The only time the Council will step in and stop you is if you become a political liability. Otherwise if they wanted limits on a Spectre's freeodm they wouldn't give them a free pass to completely disregard the law.

 An embassy means little, all it means is that an associate race can ask the Council to listen to their pleas. However they have no vote, no actualy say, no actual power. Crowds shouting at Saddam Hussien had as much power and influence as any associate race with an embassy on the Citadel. Which is to say, none.

 What I will say is this. I read your point as being that you don't believe the motive of the Council is to act in the interests of  the galaxy, rather in their own interests.[/quote]

Yes, and I demonstrated how true this is. Think about is logically as well. Every organism, every nation, acts in its own interests. The Council doesn't care about stability for stability's sake, they care because stability is in their interests. You've yet to really refute anything I've said and even tried to disregard half the argument by ignoring Council history.

Their historic and present actions indicate they care not for galactic security and instead care only for themselves. Don't you think entire colonies simply VANISHING along with hundreds of thousands of humans is something that might threaten galactic security? Don't you think an invasion by a race of hostile machines who have lived in seclusion for three centuries is a big deal and possibly a threat to galactic security? If you agree then surely the Council's refusal to take seriously much less do anything about these threats is indicative of their true motives.

The "galactic peace, security, and unity" crap is just propaganda.

 [quote]TobyHasEyes wrote...

In a thread discussing the Illusive Man, the point was that I don;t see the aims of Cerberus as being justified or his actions legitimate. They would be if no other species' could be trusted, and that their actions (whether intentionally or not) would harm humanity to such an extent that it trumps the rest of the galaxy. Lets not forget TIM wants human dominance, not merely the toppling of the Council.[/quote]

They are one and the same. Achieving a dominant position for humanity invariably means shaking up the current power structure on the Council. The other races can't be trusted. We've seen from history how willing they are to **** each other over and why you'd even deny this is beyond me. Species do not become top dog by being self-sacrificing. Such a species would not even survive the environment of its home planet much less the galactic envirement. The bottom line is species are concerned firstly with their interests and anything else is a distant second. They only care about us in so far as we benefit their security and prosperity.

These other races dwarf us in size, both in economy and in population. For humanity to stay competitive we have to keep expanding and we have to narrow the technological gaps between us as quickly as possible. Towards that end Cerberus has been highly successful. They've pushed the boundaries and allowed humanity to stay at the cutting edge which is slowly but surely allowing us to reach for the top.

Thanks to Cerberus we have the Normandy, a stealth ship which totally changes the nature of warfare. We have potent human biotics that can rival asari matriarchs in power. Overlord and a host of Reaper and Collector tech are also at our fingertips and some of our most fearsome enemies like the Collectors and Shadow Broker have been vanquished.

The freedom and lack of oversight and accountability is what gives Cerberus its edge. The other elite groups are forced to acquiece to politics, not so Cerberus. As they have no official connections to the Alliance humanity as a whole can beneift from their work whilst also passing off any responsibility for their "crimes".

It's a dog eat dog galaxy and there are bears about. Ashley Williams had it right on the money. The other races will play nice with us as long as we are useful but the moment they have to choose between us and them they will choose themselves every time and leave us to be devoured by the bear. This is perfectly demonstrated by the Council's actions in ME1 and ME2, as well as historically.

We can't afford to be trusting or passive. If we go down that road we will never reach the heights of the Council because we'll succumb to their laws and regulations, ceding more and more power to them until we have none. Only if we refuse to take "no" for an answer and insist on pushing upwards and forwards will we match and then surpass them.

#103
TobyHasEyes
Posté 10 avril 2011 - 05:13

TobyHasEyes
  • Members
  • 1 109 messages
- My attitude to the Council's history as relevant to this debate is that it is like debating the motives of a nation's government, say France, based on the history of that country. It has something to say about the institution, but not about the motives of those who currently make it up

- Neither the geth nor the batarians nor the Collectors live in Council Space. When they have attacked, it has been in the Attican Traverse. As regards that region; Anderson suggest that the Council was glad for humanity to colonise the Traverse, but the Council states they were warned of the risks. The Council had already declared the region one of military non-intervention, for the aim of not provoking the Terminus Systems and causing all out war. You choose to go into that area, and you take the risks. The aim of avoiding all our war with the Terminus systems is a legitimate course of action, which does not suggest selfish self interest

- We can all surely accept that the Reapers are an exceptional case; you would be furious if the leader of your country completely changed their military policy based on one soldiers views, which at that time had no evidence to support them. And if it were not for the Council, and its policy of Spectre's, the Reapers would have won already

- The Council stripped Saren of his Spectre status, so clearly there are some criteria which suggest a Spectre has gone too far. The argument that the Spectre's are sometimes a necessary evil is also valid, as Spectre forces were vital in the Krogan Rebellions and of course, Commander Shepard

I could continue making these kinds of responses, but this is the point the debate should focus on;

The Council claims it's motive is to act in the interest of galactic security, unity etc.

You claim that is a lie.

Now for each Council decision, you can at least describe how someone who had those lofty motives at heart could reach that decision. They may involve bad judgement, but at least possible that the motive was good. At the same time, each can be read as having a sinister underlying motive. That simply an example of how we can present barebone facts in different ways, considering we are not given enough information about these fictional choices to say they are in no way ambiguous

So it comes down to your final point, that logically every organism and organisation is self interested. There is nothing logical about that view, it is merely an interpretation and assumption. There are certainly cases of people who have culturally reached the view that their own lives are less valuable than certain principles

#104
TobyHasEyes
Posté 10 avril 2011 - 05:31

TobyHasEyes
  • Members
  • 1 109 messages
For it to be a logical necessity, then the predicate has to be contained in the subject. That is to say, the quality you are ascribing to something has to be contained in the definition. The always used example is that all bachelors are male. The predicate (male) is contained in the subject (bachelor, assuming it is defined as an unmarried male).

What you are claimed is that the Council, and its members, must be acting out of self interest because all organisations, and its member organisms, necessarily act out of self interest.

Therefore what you have to prove is that, beyond even the fictitious Mass Effect universe, it is part of the definition of an organism that they only ever act in self interest. I do not presume to understand all of my own motives, let alone the motives of every organism ever

#105
TobyHasEyes
Posté 10 avril 2011 - 05:50

TobyHasEyes
  • Members
  • 1 109 messages
Lets just say this.. the information given is sufficiently ambiguous that they can be interpreted either way; a fair reading does not necessarily show the Council to be sincere, nor do they necessarily show them to be power mad or bad. A such, whichever direction Bioware chooses to take this fictitious organisation is not a betrayal of logic or the facts as given

#106
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 10 avril 2011 - 05:52

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

TobyHasEyes wrote...

- My attitude to the Council's history as relevant to this debate is that it is like debating the motives of a nation's government, say France, based on the history of that country. It has something to say about the institution, but not
about the motives of those who currently make it up.


That isn't applicable at all because the government of France has changed many times over the centuries. The Council has not fundamentally changed since it was first formed. All it has done is expand by bringing in the turians.

That the geth, Collectors, and batarians are not "in" Council space is bunk. Even Nihlus admits that Eden Prime is within Council territory by vitrue of the fact that the geth attack is a declaration of war under the law. I understand the Council's reasons for not wanting to get involved, but this is the crux of the matter. In the process they are leaving an associate race hung out to dry and they are ignoring a significant threat the galactic security. The Council is so hell bent on avoiding war that they are merely post-poning it and in the process making it worse. Their non-interventionism is what allowed the geth and batarians to become threats in the first place, threats right
on the front door of the Citadel.

I never said anything about the Council doing anything about the Reapers. I don't  blame them for disbelieving Shepard. However they should have been doing something about the geth and the Collectors. They should have been at least concerned and investigating the matter (regarding the Collectors). During the geth attacks they could have aided the Alliance. The idea that sending Council fleets into the Traverse or Terminus would have caused war is, frankly, bunk. We know it is bunk because after the geth attack the Council sent out its fleets to follow humanity's lead in counter-attacking the geth. They also sent a fleet to pulverize the world of Ekuna when the quarians settled their illegally. Bear in mind Ekuna is far outside traditional Council space but apparently was important enough to warrant genocide to stop the quarians from settling.

So answer me this, if colonization is so important that the Council will bomb a race for settling on a world without first asking permission, why then will they not later defend those worlds from attack? There is an inconsistency in
policy here. If worlds are worth charging rent and evicting tennants who don't pay then they are also worth defending. The Council can't have it both ways and expect to remain as the "legitimate" authority on interstellar matters.

When the Council stripped Saren of his Spectre status it was only after humans had finished their own investigation. On their end the Council didn't care enough to launch a real investigation and wanted to just sweep the whole thing under the rug. When put on the spot the Council did the only thing it could do without completely alienating the Alliance. That's also why they made Shepard a Spectre. They didn't really want a human Spectre, but as Udina demonstrates they don't want humanity to leave the Citadel and are willing to make concessions if it  means keeping them moderately happy. Humanity isn't useful to them if it won't play their game. Making Shepard a Spectre was a convenient out for the Council. It got humanity out of their "hair" and also promised to do away with a Spectre agent who had become too much of a liability.


If the Council cared about galactic security they would take an even stance across the board and would actively confront threats like the geth, Collectors, and batarians.


TobyHasEyes wrote...

Soit comes down to your final point, that logically every organism and organisation is self interested. There is nothing logical about that view, it is merely an interpretation and assumption. There are certainly cases of people who have culturally reached the view that their own lives are less valuable than certain principles


Oh no, my friend, it is absolutely a correct view. You cannot dispute this. If you think I'm wrong then I suggest you talk to a biologist. People do not die for principles, they die for their group. The group may be friends, family, or a nation. Whatever the group is, it is the herd. Principles are designed to benefit the herd and when an organism dies for that principle he is doing so with the intention obviously of bettering the herd by keeping the principle relevant.

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Therefore what you have to prove is that, beyond even the fictitious Mass Effect universe, it is part of the definition of an organism that they only ever act in self interest. I do not presume to understand all of my own motives, let alone the motives of every organism ever


You might not understand your own motives or instincts, but biologists do, quite well. Fundamentally we are just animals with brains better developed in certain areas. Right down to ameobas though we all have the same drive to pass our genes on to the next generation. Whether you want kids or not, you probably believe in concepts and theories which create a stable environment. This facilitates breeding for your peers.

The very basics of live grew from the laws which govern the universe and thus we can predict, in a broad sense, the behavior of life anywhere in the universe.

Modifié par Saphra Deden, 10 avril 2011 - 05:58 .

#107
JusticarDoom
Posté 10 avril 2011 - 05:54

JusticarDoom
  • Members
  • 185 messages
TIM imo is one of the best characters in the game. i dont want to kill him. i want to meet him in person in his office we see so much in ME2 and just have some badass "dont come after me again" talk. either that or i want to crush cerberus and see the illusive man broken, with some form of redemption to be getting at. either way. no death. i plead.

#108
TobyHasEyes
Posté 10 avril 2011 - 10:51

TobyHasEyes
  • Members
  • 1 109 messages
Either you have confused 'self interest' with 'consequentialism', or you have made a moot point. If an organism's mind can be overwhelmingly driven by a motive to benefit the herd (which can be defined as a family, friendship group, community, nation etc.) to the extent that the life of the individual is forfeit, then it is totally possible that Council members could be overwhelmingly driven by a motive of "bettering the herd by keeping a principle relevant", with the "herd" being those in Council space (of any race/species) and the "principle" being unity or how you choose to define it.

Fundamentally neurobiologists, psychologists and philosophers of mind are more humble about their understanding of motivation; having a reductionist, monist view of the mind means that in theory every chemical reaction (or even energy transfer) could be recognised, but most would recognise that the number of reactions/transfers etc. is so huge that 100% certainty is beyond them. That is the thorough view of how instincts and motives translate into action. What you are stating as the final world is observations on animal behaviour, not the absolute final word

#109
Guest_Saphra Deden_*
Posté 11 avril 2011 - 12:11

Guest_Saphra Deden_*
  • Guests

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Either you have confused 'self interest' with 'consequentialism', or you have made a moot point. If an organism's mind can be overwhelmingly driven by a motive to benefit the herd (which can be defined as a family, friendship group, community, nation etc.) to the extent that the life of the individual is forfeit, then it is totally possible that Council members could be overwhelmingly driven by a motive of "bettering the herd by keeping a principle relevant", with the "herd" being those in Council space (of any race/species) and the "principle" being unity or how you choose to define it.


It's possible but all of the evidence points to a different answer. If the Council cared about the larger galaxy they wouldn't have such an exclusive racket. All species would have a vote in Council affairs. Instead the weaker races are locked out of the decision making process completely.

It is also important to remember that the Council is grown from the sovereign governments of its member nations. The Council also divides up Citadel space according to species. What race you are determines how much respect you are entitled to and what opportunities are afforded to you.

This combined with everything I've talked about before shows us beyond a reasonable doubt that the Council is ultmimately a xeno-nationalist triumvirate designed to benefit the three strongest races in the galaxy. Anyone else is just along for the ride. The Council has never taken any objectively self-sacrificing moves since its inception.

#110
TheRedSage
Posté 12 avril 2011 - 02:23

TheRedSage
  • Members
  • 21 messages
I dunno if I want Illusive Man to get in some big robot suit and try and take out Shepard. He's a schemer, not really a fighter.

#111
Malanek
Posté 12 avril 2011 - 02:26

Malanek
  • Members
  • 7 838 messages

thatguy212 wrote...

Only if i get to become the new Illusive Man, and if its more than just a cutscene killing of him, i want a full on boss fight

Miranda is more likely to take over Cerberus.

#112
JedTed
Posté 12 avril 2011 - 05:40

JedTed
  • Members
  • 1 109 messages
I hope you get to blow up his fancy space station or even better, disable it's engines and watch burn up in that star.
Retourner dans Story, Campaign, and Characters


  1. The BioWare Forum
  2. → Mass Effect
  3. → Mass Effect 2
  4. → Story, Campaign, and Characters