66 réponses à ce sujet

[Missouri Tigers]

I tried to be a pro-human guy on one of my characters, but I just can't do it.  It seems dumb to completely alienate aliens and refuse their help.  I can understand having some pride in humanity and Earth, but it just feels like warding off any potential allies is the stupidest thing anybody could ever do.  What kind of person wouldn't want a better chance of fighting a threat that kills everybody?

[DoNotIngest]

That's why I never went pro-human. Pretty much the opposite, really; Between the Alliance and Cerberus, Humanity seems to want to screw Shepard as much as possible. Not that I won't save Earth if it's an option (unless there's a choice, oh my )

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Since when does being pro-human mean refusing help from aliens? That's just being stupid and stubborn. No matter how strong you are allies can make you stronger.

This.

My Shepards tend to be pro-human even if they're Paragons, it's part of the job that you should represent humanity and advance their interests (of course, there'll always be debate about what those interests are and how best to advance them but that's a separate topic).

I suppose it's easy to get confused about what "pro-human" means so maybe that's where your trouble is coming from.  Supporting a human over an alien isn't inherently "pro-human", there will be situations that don't really have an impact on advancing human interests and there will also be times where helping the alien is a better choice.  For example, if the human is a criminal there's no benefit to humanity in letting them go simply because they targetted an alien (if anything, arresting them is better since it could help build relations).  If you support humans regardless of the circumstances and consider aliens to be "lesser beings" then you're more "anti-alien" than "pro-human".

[CaptainZaysh]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Since when does being pro-human mean refusing help from aliens? That's just being stupid and stubborn. No matter how strong you are allies can make you stronger.

Maybe I'm just stuck in the old ways.

[Dean_the_Young]

Missouri Tigers wrote...

I tried to be a pro-human guy on one of my characters, but I just can't do it.  It seems dumb to completely alienate aliens and refuse their help.  I can understand having some pride in humanity and Earth, but it just feels like warding off any potential allies is the stupidest thing anybody could ever do.  What kind of person wouldn't want a better chance of fighting a threat that kills everybody?

Why do you think that would be a pro-Human path, then?

[tjzsf]

Same. "Pro-human" shouldn't mean you refuse all help and act like a jackass to all aliens, but the game more or less forces you into this extremely short-sighted view. I *wanted* to play pro-human when I first got the game, and it just bugged me so very much that all the decisions that advance humanity is only based on making the aliens weaker, especially the ME1 endgame decision of save/sacrifice/abandon the Destiny Ascension. It does absolutely no good to make humans relatively stronger than all the other factions. Absolute strength is the important thing here. It doesn't matter if you're the highest leveled character in your party if you're only at level 11 and all the monsters are at level 20.

The annoying thing is that it's also exclusively renegade, so if I wanted to play a rational renegade I still end up accumulating all those paragon points.

[Prince Keldar]

tjzsf wrote...

Same. "Pro-human" shouldn't mean you refuse all help and act like a jackass to all aliens, but the game more or less forces you into this extremely short-sighted view. I *wanted* to play pro-human when I first got the game, and it just bugged me so very much that all the decisions that advance humanity is only based on making the aliens weaker, especially the ME1 endgame decision of save/sacrifice/abandon the Destiny Ascension. It does absolutely no good to make humans relatively stronger than all the other factions. Absolute strength is the important thing here. It doesn't matter if you're the highest leveled character in your party if you're only at level 11 and all the monsters are at level 20.

This is depending, as others have said, on what your view on being "pro-human" is.  If you let the council die then the humans create another council and become the dominate species.  On the other hand if you save the council then the humans are represented in the council.  So basically humanity is still represented in the Council at the end of ME1 regardless of your choice with the Destiny Ascension.  It is more of a domination vs. cooperation issue.

[Dean_the_Young]

tjzsf wrote...

Same. "Pro-human" shouldn't mean you refuse all help and act like a jackass to all aliens, but the game more or less forces you into this extremely short-sighted view. I *wanted* to play pro-human when I first got the game, and it just bugged me so very much that all the decisions that advance humanity is only based on making the aliens weaker, especially the ME1 endgame decision of save/sacrifice/abandon the Destiny Ascension. It does absolutely no good to make humans relatively stronger than all the other factions. Absolute strength is the important thing here. It doesn't matter if you're the highest leveled character in your party if you're only at level 11 and all the monsters are at level 20.

The annoying thing is that it's also exclusively renegade, so if I wanted to play a rational renegade I still end up accumulating all those paragon points.

If absolute power is the important thing, then sparking a galaxy-wide arms race, even if it is against Humanity, sounds like far better preparation than the Paragon Council's status-quo-ante attitude. While the Asari more or less dip out, this could easily enough be considered balanced or even outweighed by the Turian arms race with the Alliance, along with Salarian reconstruction: the Renegade universe has Humanity in firm-enough control of the Citadel due to a temporary, rather than permanent, weakness on the part of the other species.

Add that to the value of a more assertive Council willing to react decisivily, and you can trade slow-reaction multilateralism for actual action and reaction. That's a strategic advantage in and of itself.


Moreover, most of the 'pro-Human' choices really aren't about keeping the aliens down or weaker, or driving away allies for the Reaper War. Helping Cerberus (the Collector Base, Overlord, the minor missions, etc.) doesn't weaken other species, nor does it logically prevent alliances between the Alliance and other species.

[Sebby]

Saphra Deden wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Same. "Pro-human" shouldn't mean you refuse all help and act like a jackass to all aliens, but the game more or less forces you into this extremely short-sighted view.

No it doesnt. Not ever. You CAN play that way if you want, but you don't have to.

I finished ME1 with full Renegade and only 22 Paragon points. Not once was my Shepard racist to any alien and he didn't turn down any help. (well unless you count the rachni queen, I suppose)

The Rachni Queen never offers any help in ME1 so no she doesn't count. :happy:

[Smeelia]

Seboist wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Same. "Pro-human" shouldn't mean you refuse all help and act like a jackass to all aliens, but the game more or less forces you into this extremely short-sighted view.

No it doesnt. Not ever. You CAN play that way if you want, but you don't have to.

I finished ME1 with full Renegade and only 22 Paragon points. Not once was my Shepard racist to any alien and he didn't turn down any help. (well unless you count the rachni queen, I suppose)

The Rachni Queen never offers any help in ME1 so no she doesn't count. :happy:

You could still argue that it's racist (or whatever the appropriate term is), the Rachni Queen has never personally done anything bad (or much at all, she's basically been a slave and prisoner her whole life).  Killing the Rachni Queen isn't too different to killing a Salarian prisoner (or any other race really but a Salarian female would have a similar birthing capability, a non-genophage affected Krogan female could be similar too), assuming that Salarian was the last one alive at least.  It's not even different to killing a human prisoner really, if you take "species" out of the equation (also, the "genocide" angle might hit home better if the situation was that not rescuing these prisoners meant the end of humanity).

Modifié par Smeelia, 20 juin 2011 - 03:10 .

[Asari Commando]

Missouri Tigers wrote...

completely alienate aliens

lol @ aliens being alienated. for me i have always looked at other races in the mass effect universe with great interest and appreciation, with exception to the batarian scum of course. getting thrown in a huge galaxy with all these new people and places, its pretty close minded to only want to associate with humans.

[Agamo45]

I rather like the renegade ending of ME1. Humanity climbing to the top on the rubble of the Citadel races, becoming the political top dog with an iron fist. It fits with the dark universe, and it makes sense historically. Every empire in history was founded with blood and fire.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

26 years after First Contact, we're innovating on the dominant technology and establishing a place for ourselves amongst the leaders of the galaxy. That's--what--the Asari equivalent of elementary school?

I reckon Humanity is on its way to dominating the galaxy already. In fact, if the Reapers don't move fast, we'll be eating them with melted butter when they arrive.

Anyway, I figure it's best to be nice to the aliens while we happily work on our technological dominance.

[Smeelia]

Saphra Deden wrote...

There is nothing racist about killing her unless you just hate rachni. My Shepard doesn't hate her and he doesn't hate rachni. He kills her because she is dangerous, and she is. Regardless of what her intent might be (which we can't know at the time), the nature of her being a rachni makes her dangerous. Specifically her ability to breed at a rapid pace. That is why she must be killed rather than released.

Hardly an ideal solution, but it is the most practical solution made available to the player.

That's debatable on both points really (which isn't to say "wrong", by the way).  Humans are dangerous but we don't go around killing them or stopping them from breeding.  We know the Rachni Queen is intelligent (deceptive or not) and that they're capable of deciding whether or not to be hostile so we can't assume they'd be a threat (not that we can assume they'd be helpful either).  Even their birth rate isn't enough to call the Rachni any more of a danger than any other race, just because there may end up being a lot of them.  One problem that the council races had when dealing with the Rachni was that they were already well established and were able to survive in incredibly harsh climates that the council races struggled to fight in.  The main danger of a high birth rate would be if they began overpopulating quickly and constantly needed new worlds but the Rachni ability to survive in dangerous climates means they can be considered for many worlds that are useless to most current species so this could offset the potential risk their birth rate could possess (assuming they made any attempt to integrate but, again, this risk applies to any intelligent life).

Reading up on the Rachni War suggests that the perception of the Rachni birth rate may be exaggerated.  I used to consider it comparable to the Krogan but that isn't likely given the information, the Krogan were able to outbreed the Rachni within a relatively short time and had the numbers to fight within two generations (which is presumably a short time, Krogan also mature very quickly).  Another reason the Krogan were so effective is that they could also survive in the harsh climates that the Rachni occupied. 

Another species that can breed fairly quickly are the Salarians, their population growth is mainly held in check by their own social rules and they could swiftly develop a very large population if that was to change (without the advantage of being able to survive in harsh climates, though they would also have the disadvantage of a short lifespan).  The fact they can breed quickly doesn't mean they will definately overpopulate (since they don't) and doesn't make them a significant threat to the galaxy, the same could be said of the Rachni.  A single Rachni Queen seems to be able to produce a lot of workers and soldiers over time but they don't seem to be quick to produce Queens for some reason (otherwise they should have been better able to compete with Krogan breeding and attacks).  We also don't know the lifespan of a Rachni, it's likely that the Queens live for a long time but Rachni lifespans may be similarly short to Salarians (or could even be longer than Krogans).

So it could be said that if you're taking the "practical" approach then you're killing a prisoner because you have an inflated idea of the probability of them becoming a threat (it's far from guaranteed and arguably no greater than most other races).  That said, it's understandable how Shepard could come to that conclusion given that most human information on Rachni is second hand and can be easily confused with the threat the Krogan became, plus there's no reason to think Shepard would look too deeply at the information (since you wouldn't expect to be faced with a Rachni).  Also, a lot of relevant information doesn't seem to be available (particularly how quickly new Queens can be produced, since this drastically affects potential birth rate).  You could also argue that the risk of releasing any prisoner with an unknown affiliation isn't worthwhile (so you wouldn't be discriminating against the Rachni specifically, although there's still the genocide issue).

[Dean_the_Young]

Humans also don't breed at exponential levels, have the ability to present a credible threat to soldiers armed with high-power weaponry and energy shields while we're in the nude, So the caution humans deserve by default compared to the caution the, say, Rachni deserve on entirely different levels.

Likewise with the Salarians as well (who don't breed that fast either): the danger level is mitigated by their actions and history, neither of which the Rachni can really hide behind.

[Volus Warlord]

Nope.

[Smeelia]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Humans also don't breed at exponential levels, have the ability to present a credible threat to soldiers armed with high-power weaponry and energy shields while we're in the nude, So the caution humans deserve by default compared to the caution the, say, Rachni deserve on entirely different levels.

Irrelevant, we're talking long-term threat here (short-term the Rachni Queen isn't a huge danger and could be eliminated) and Humans are quite capable of using technology to kill people.  Every race is a potential threat, would you commit genocide on all of them if they give you a chance?

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Likewise with the Salarians as well (who don't breed that fast either): the danger level is mitigated by their actions and history, neither of which the Rachni can really hide behind.

Salarians are capable of breeding faster than you might think, the biggest limiting factor is their own choice to control breeding in a particular way.  We have no reason to believe that the Rachni can breed excessively fast (otherwise the Krogan breeding rate wouldn't have been so significantly useful).  We forgave the Turians for attacking us directly, why should we hold someone responsible for a war that occured a long time ago (before they were even alive) and that we weren't even involved in (and we only have the point of view of the "victor" for reference on what happened)?

[SandTrout]

From a pro-human stand-point, the Rachni Queen is either a potential threat or a potential ally. Either decision can be justified as looking after Humanity's interests.

Destroying the Queen is an act of ensuring that they will not become a rival and/or threat to our dominance. Based on history, we know that the Rachni nearly toppled the Citadel Species until the uplifted Krogan managed to beat them back.

Setting her free is betting that she will be a useful ally of Humanity once the Rachni population expands to competitive levels. It is a gamble that states that you think that the chances and benefits of the Rachni becoming our allies outweigh the risks associated with the Rachni becoming our enemies.

BTW, it is implied during the Noveria mission that the Rachni are capable of expanding their population base extremely quickly due to a single queen being capable of reproducing.

[Sebby]

SandTrout wrote...

From a pro-human stand-point, the Rachni Queen is either a potential threat or a potential ally. Either decision can be justified as looking after Humanity's interests.

Destroying the Queen is an act of ensuring that they will not become a rival and/or threat to our dominance. Based on history, we know that the Rachni nearly toppled the Citadel Species until the uplifted Krogan managed to beat them back.

Setting her free is betting that she will be a useful ally of Humanity once the Rachni population expands to competitive levels. It is a gamble that states that you think that the chances and benefits of the Rachni becoming our allies outweigh the risks associated with the Rachni becoming our enemies.

BTW, it is implied during the Noveria mission that the Rachni are capable of expanding their population base extremely quickly due to a single queen being capable of reproducing.

True, my canon renegon Shep rationalized it as having the Rachni as an ally against the Reapers and Council races.

[Smeelia]

SandTrout wrote...

From a pro-human stand-point, the Rachni Queen is either a potential threat or a potential ally. Either decision can be justified as looking after Humanity's interests.

True enough.

SandTrout wrote...

BTW, it is implied during the Noveria mission that the Rachni are capable of expanding their population base extremely quickly due to a single queen being capable of reproducing.

True, apparently the rate is up to one egg every few hours.  Maturation and such aren't known, nor is the Queen birth rate although there's reason to suspect Queens are very rare (and if they're not then it's possible there were spares from the project taken somewhere).  You could have a few thousand Rachni within a year (so by ME2 the population could be up to five or six thousand, maybe more but that's less likely).  It'll still take them a while to establish themselves and if they're going to ever be a significant threat it'll probably be some time in the future (similarly, they may not be that useful as allies when fighting the Reapers).

Still, Salarians apparently don't need more than one to breed either (I thought this was interesting, though maybe it's a little off-topic).  Each female can produce around a dozen eggs each year and any fertilised eggs become females (meaning they can produce a dozen females each year, each of whom can eventually produce a dozen and so on, though some eggs would need to be male to do the fertilising), they'd need the first ones to be male since there'd be no males for fertilisation but after that they could create a lot of females.  It's possible that Salarians could outbreed Rachni after a while (also, they already have a large established population base), depending on how often Queens can be produced and how quickly they mature.

Modifié par Smeelia, 21 juin 2011 - 08:27 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Smeelia wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Humans also don't breed at exponential levels, have the ability to present a credible threat to soldiers armed with high-power weaponry and energy shields while we're in the nude, So the caution humans deserve by default compared to the caution the, say, Rachni deserve on entirely different levels.

Irrelevant, we're talking long-term threat here (short-term the Rachni Queen isn't a huge danger and could be eliminated) and Humans are quite capable of using technology to kill people.  Every race is a potential threat, would you commit genocide on all of them if they give you a chance?

It's entirely relevant: Rachni exponential growth on a time-scale of short term, and their capabilities with miniml technology, makes them an entirely different threat compared to an equivalent group of, say, Salarians or humans. Moreover, you're for getting that immediate concerns going forward are also based upon prior behavior and history. Humans have a galactic history of being willing to compromise, not being exceptionally warlike, and a proven willingness to exist in peace. The Rachni do not.

There is no moral or logical requirement to handle all threats in a singular manner.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Likewise with the Salarians as well (who don't breed that fast either): the danger level is mitigated by their actions and history, neither of which the Rachni can really hide behind.

Salarians are capable of breeding faster than you might think, the biggest limiting factor is their own choice to control breeding in a particular way.  We have no reason to believe that the Rachni can breed excessively fast (otherwise the Krogan breeding rate wouldn't have been so significantly useful).  We forgave the Turians for attacking us directly, why should we hold someone responsible for a war that occured a long time ago (before they were even alive) and that we weren't even involved in (and we only have the point of view of the "victor" for reference on what happened)?

The fact that they do and have proven themselves willing limit themselves, however, is why Salarian reproduction is an issue on an entirely different scale than Krogan or Rachni.

We do have reason to believe the Rachni can breed excessivly fast: history. The Krogans didn't come by and surpass the Rachni in a vacume or in a short span of time either either, but were aided by a combined galaxy that was already tempering the Rachni's own development and growth and had been for decades.

We forgave the Turians for attacking us directly because they were willing to admit they were wrong well before the war even began in full even though they were in a position of strength, and not simply from a position at which anything but denial would be tantemount to suicidal logic. And even then we retain one of the strongest military fleets in the galaxy.

We have no reason to believe the Council records are innacurate or biased in terms of recording what happened: the victor does not need to lie in any and every occasion.

[naledgeborn]

My Shepard is the least Anti-Alien Pro Human. He even endorsed Charles Saracino and the Terra Firma Party. He still saved the Destiny Ascension. But appointed Udina as Counselor. My Shepard believes that Humans deserve to be on top with the Asari and Turians but that doesn't mean we have to low blow them to get there.