951 réponses à ce sujet

[Haventh]

SgtPepper667 wrote...

Sometimes you have to sacrifice a few people to save a thousand.

We don't know if Balak would have learned his lesson (most likely not), or if he would have ignored Shepard's words and continued being a terrorist. It was unfortunate that the hostages had to die, but it was necessary. By killing Balak, Shepard saved more lives than he/she gave up.

Letting Balak go is unrealistic, because you're letting someone who was very willing to destroy a whole planet go. Who's stopping him from doing it again?

I believe the best way is to hand him over to the Alliance for interrogation. That way they can expose contacts and possibly a network and take down the entire ring.

[Seboist]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

I think there are wise and stupid decisions from both Paragon and Renegade sides, which is why I made two serious careers where I did the opposite things all the way through, minus the decision that I thought were stupid.

Smart Renegade choices:
-- Kill Feros colonists (I never played on a high enough difficulty which made them too hard to save, but if I was, killing them would be reasonable since the mission comes first)
-- Let the Council die (Establishing humanity as a super-power and thus creating competition will mean large fleets to potentially fight the Reapers)
-- Udina as Councilor (To date, Anderson has been lousy, getting nothing done in either council. At least Udina's been doing SOMETHING, if Miranda's reviews correctly)
-- Kill batarians holding Daniel hostage.
-- Let Eldfell-Ashland refinery workers die for Zaeed's loyalty.
-- Have Kasumi destroy the greybox.
-- Let Garrus kill Sidonis (10 deaths are on the guy's hands. If Garrus want him dead, he has good reason. Of course, you also need to consider what's best for Garrus and whether or not you want him going down that path in general).
-- Shooting Harkin (Guy tried to elude Shepard all the way 'til the end, luckily Garrus caught him on the other end. Slow him down so he doesn't run away from C-Sec. He's not deserving of sympathy in the least.)
-- Killing Aresh (My only reason for not doing it is the possible effect on Jack. If she weren't there, I'd kill him. Unstable, whacko-loony. Likely no one will miss him either.)
-- Destroying the geth-heretics (Taking no chances on geth changing allegiences.)
-- Killing Samara (If you are a renegade, she's a threat to you. Besides, she might be as much trouble as he daughter anyway.)

Stupid:
-- Kill the Rachni Queen (Sorry, there has to be much stronger reason than "could be a threat" to commit full-species genocide)
-- Veetor to Cerberus (The deranged quarian didn't help give you any info on the Collectors. Color me shocked.)
-- Restarting Overlord (Actually, it's logically smart. But ethically, I can't justify it.)
-- Kill Ronald Taylor (He gets the easy way out, not a fan.)
-- Kill Joram Talid (Congradulations, you just made an anti-human figure die a martyr to his cause.)
-- Convicting Rael'Zorra (He may have been a war-criminal, but revealing what happened causes more problems. Better not to divide the quarians before the Reapers show up)
-- Destroying Genophage data (If you justify keeping the 'base, how do you justify this? This certainly can be a weapon to be used against the Reapers, and unlike Cerberus with the base, you are entrusting it to someone NOT inclined to use it irresponsibly.)

Not going to open up the Collector-Base can of worms. But yeah, I think there is solid reasoning behind some of these. Others are stupid, but there are stupid Paragon decisions too, IMO.

When the alternative to killing the Rachni Queen is recklessly letting her loose unsupervised then yes it's the smart thing to do.... and this is coming from someone who freed her in his canon.

Edit: The Queen doesn't even offer any future assistance either,so freeing her just amounts to being a "feel good" choice as presented in the game.

There's plenty of logic with giving Veetor to Cerberus, the problem is that it ends up becoming a joke by the "have your cake and eat it" alternative thanks to the nincompoopery of the writers. It's very similiar to how the renegade Feros path ends up being just for the lulz.

Modifié par Seboist, 13 septembre 2011 - 12:01 .

[Labrev]

Seboist wrote...

When the alternative to killing the Rachni Queen is recklessly letting her loose unsupervised then yes it's the smart thing to do.... and this is coming from someone who freed her in his canon.

Edit: The Queen doesn't even offer any future assistance either,so freeing her just amounts to being a "feel good" choice as presented in the game.

There's plenty of logic with giving Veetor to Cerberus, the problem is that it ends up becoming a joke by the "have your cake and eat it" alternative thanks to the nincompoopery of the writers. It's very similiar to how the renegade Feros path ends up being just for the lulz.

The rationale for killing the Queen is that the rachni are monsters and senseless killers, but the Queen dispells that notion altogether. A monster doesn't humble itself down to a stranger to ask for mercy. And think about it, the fat scientist you find in the Hot Labs says that the Queen's children have become unstable and violent because they were seperated from the mother and thus not properly raised. That tells me that the rachni are not naturally aggressive and violent.

Shoot, they aren't even more dangerous than the krogan, strength-wise nor socially.


And is there really logic to the Veetor thing? Because for my part, I can't find it. I'd always thought it to be a predictably lost cause.

[capn233]

I think the whole way the realism question in this thread has been framed is dubious.

Is it more realistic for a principled person to kill only in self defense than for a murderer to kill someone in cold blood?

The only way the options are realistic or not is if they are consistent with the convictions or morality of a paragon or renegade Shepard respectively. Granted, in real life people may choose an option that goes against what they believe for whatever reason... but you have the freedom to do so in the game.

Unfortunately, it is hard to guess what the real convictions of a Paragon or Renegade actually are in this game since some choices are a bit out of character. They clearly are not strictly Deontologists and Utilitarians respectively. Perhaps it would have been easier if they took this route, but it doesn't seem that they did. The Renegade perhaps has the strongest deviation as he comes off just as ruthless for the sake of displaying his power, or perhaps simply a selfish psychopath. This is in contrast to the Paragon, which may seem naive at times, but not to the same degree. Perhaps that is really what the developers wanted, I can't say since I wasn't on their team.

Regarding some of the choices, too many people are showing lack of attention when playing through the games. I don't want to write a novel, so I only want to talk about 2:

Dr Saleon: The choice at the end is not let Garrus kill him or let him go free. The Paragon choice is to arrest the sick bastage. He then try's to fight / flee and is gunned down. Garrus even asks "And he died anyway, what was the point in that?" And you explain it.

Veetor: The choice has been misrepresented as blind faith in the Quarians to give you data. You already have his omni-tool data. The question is whether the quarians should get to take him and treat him, or whether or not to take him with you for "debriefing." If you take the Paragon choice, the quarians forward their probably nice debriefing results which are no new data. That isn't completely surprising in that Tali probably lobbied for Shepard, and the fact that you turned him over when you certainly did not have to was a show of good faith. On the Renegade side, his interrogation by Cerberus yields nothing as well. That should really not be surprising given your interaction with him. He was clearly a bit off to begin with, why expect that you are going to get anything useful out of him other than his omni-tool data? There is no have your cake and eat it too choice since the outcome was more or less the same. Except that the Quarians were grateful you returned him, or they are unhappy that you didn't. Both are more or less "realistic."

Modifié par capn233, 13 septembre 2011 - 03:32 .

[Seboist]

capn233 wrote...

I think the whole way the realism question in this thread has been framed is dubious.

Is it more realistic for a principled person to kill only in self defense than for a murderer to kill someone in cold blood?

The only way the options are realistic or not is if they are consistent with the convictions or morality of a paragon or renegade Shepard respectively. Granted, in real life people may choose an option that goes against what they believe for whatever reason... but you have the freedom to do so in the game.

Unfortunately, it is hard to guess what the real convictions of a Paragon or Renegade actually are in this game since some choices are a bit out of character. They clearly are not strictly Deontologists and Utilitarians respectively. Perhaps it would have been easier if they took this route, but it doesn't seem that they did. The Renegade perhaps has the strongest deviation as he comes off just as ruthless for the sake of displaying his power, or perhaps simply a selfish psychopath. This is in contrast to the Paragon, which may seem naive at times, but not to the same degree. Perhaps that is really what the developers wanted, I can't say since I wasn't on their team.

Regarding some of the choices, too many people are showing lack of attention when playing through the games. I don't want to write a novel, so I only want to talk about 2:

Dr Saleon: The choice at the end is not let Garrus kill him or let him go free. The Paragon choice is to arrest the sick bastage. He then try's to fight / flee and is gunned down. Garrus even asks "And he died anyway, what was the point in that?" And you explain it.

Veetor: The choice has been misrepresented as blind faith in the Quarians to give you data. You already have his omni-tool data. The question is whether the quarians should get to take him and treat him, or whether or not to take him with you for "debriefing." If you take the Paragon choice, the quarians forward their probably nice debriefing results which are no new data. That isn't completely surprising in that Tali probably lobbied for Shepard, and the fact that you turned him over when you certainly did not have to was a show of good faith. On the Renegade side, his interrogation by Cerberus yields nothing as well. That should really not be surprising given your interaction with him. He was clearly a bit off to begin with, why expect that you are going to get anything useful out of him other than his omni-tool data? There is no have your cake and eat it too choice since the outcome was more or less the same. Except that the Quarians were grateful you returned him, or they are unhappy that you didn't. Both are more or less "realistic."

When the Paragon choice involves not missing out on any information that could have been gained from the alternative it absolutely is a "have your cake and eat it" one as the renegade choice becomes a false one and atypical of how the morality system functions in ME.  It ranks up there with Shepard not recieving any animosity from the Alliance brass for sacrificing ships to save the council or any from the Krogans for releasing the Rachni.

The Renegade path involves nothing but hollow victories with needless sacrifice and exists solely for the lulz and to hide the story's linearity.

[Labrev]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

The rationale for killing the Queen is that the rachni are monsters and senseless killers,

No, the rationale is that they are dangerous, and they are. It doesn't judge them as monsters, only that they are capable of great harm.

Take the risk or don't take the risk, but don't pretend it was a moral condemnation of the queen.

If you look at it that way, you could kill off the last member of every species. Do you gas the last remaining asari in the galaxy? She may produce children that become commandos and mercenaries that kill many people in the future. As many, maybe more, than the rachni's children will.

It's more than just a risk at the end of the day. Denying life to the entire race is genocide, that's just a fact. The opinion is whether or not it's justified. It can be, if we're dealing with a race that is bent on killing everyone - Collectors being one we actually have, Reapers being another that we may in the future. That's about where the line should be drawn though, in my humble opinion.

Modifié par Hah Yes Reapers, 13 septembre 2011 - 05:31 .

[Thompson family]

I save the Rachni every time and, at the core, agree with Hah Yes Reapers main point. Killing the Queen is genocide.

However, it is true the Rachni attacked the council races. It is also true the "reborn" Rachni were hostile. All this is explained by the Rachni queen -- while she's in a jar with Shep holding her life in his/her hand. She promises to do better. She says her offspring were wild because she didn't have the chance to nurture them. However, SD has a point here. No other species has a history so threatening. The Asari are always arguing for peace an cooperation. The Salarians had the opportunity to "stamp out" the Krogan but left them with some reproductive capacity. Even the Krogan, according to Mordin in ME3, would have settled down if the "civilized" species hadn't given "nuclear weapons to cave men." The geth stopped at the Perseus Veil, etc., etc.

Letting the Rachni live will probably pay off, but it's the most-risky Paragon decision and the least-paranoid of the major Renegade decisions, IMO.

[TCBC_Freak]

My thoughts: (disclaimer, I only got to page eight before I had to say something, lol.)

About the Collector Base first: Destroying it is the only logical option, why? Reaper Tech is proven to indoctrinate, this is fact, even small amounts cause indoctrination. ME1, Saran as first example of this FACT, Cerberus op using dragon's teeth now known to be reaper tech lead to the death of the team/indoctrination and husk-ification, disabled ship in side quest reaper tech crew indoctrinated, and Salarian STG team members captured and held for only a few days to a week, indoctrinated. ME2, Mine with reaper tech in it, miners indoctrinated and husks built by the tech; a dead Reaper indoctrinated the team sent to it, and do I honestly need to bring up Arrival?? All facts point to this one out come.....a fully functional Collector base filled with active Reaper tech will lead to indoctrination!!! There is no reason to keep it, it WILL indoctrinate people; that's what even "dead" Reaper tech does, why wouldn't active Reaper stuff?? Even if you trust Cerberus now to have the best intentions why would you trust a base full of Reaper tech not to indoctrinate them?

The Council: I can give that as being either or, it really depends purely on personality, both options hold weight. Renegade = must stop Sovereign so need to save ships for that; Paragon = when this is over we need stability, a standing council will be able to give that better than a bunch of green councilors. It can go either way and those are only two possible ways to think about it. Without meta-gaming there is no right or wrong and both are logical.

The Rachni: A big part is once again you as a person. Meta-game says having the Rachni against the Reapers will pay off but even then its a gamble. It's purely up to you as a person, there is no right or wrong and both can be justified with logic.

The Genophage Cure: Keeping it and giving it to Wrex to use as he sees fit (which my guess would be small doses to Urdnot females) is the most logical option but we don't have it in ME2 (I think we might in ME3 trough). Baring that, destroying it makes sense, but it's up to you. Do you trust Mordin, then letting him keep it is a good idea too, which I do trust him so I let him hold onto it to decide what to do with later.

Veetor: The only info we need from him is the data on the Collectors and how they capture the people, all of which we get from Tali before we leave, she gives us, right then, his omni-tool data. There is no reason to hold a sick traumatized man.

The Geth: This is a hard one. Honestly, I don't see either option as really being paragon. You are either killing millions of geth or basically brain washing them and removing their free will. No wonder Legion was undecided! I rewrite for a simple reason, if you kill these heretics there may be more off base who could start back up again and rewrite Legion's geth later. If you rewrite then those geth not on the heretic base will link up later and also be rewritten. That's my logic for the rewrite.

Garrus' Loyalty mission: I personally wouldn't let a friend become a murder. That's just me, maybe your a terrible friend who doesn't care about a person's long term mental health but it is proven fact that something like 90% of people who kill out of revenge or anger become mentally ill after years of struggling with what they've done.

Anything were you kill a criminal: I'm a Spectre, I serve the people and the law. For me that means due process. Capture if possible, kill only if I have to, release them if I can't bring them to proper justice now for lack of evidence. Sorry if think that's dumb but if you don't like that then I'm glad you don't have a hand in writing our real world laws or my uncle would be dead as he was falsely accused of a murder...you guys would have killed him as he was the prime suspect all the way up till the real guilty party confessed after being arrested for possession of a narcotic. And in the real world a person like Shiala who was basically drugged by a third party would not even go to jail for what they may have done while drugged (note if she had taken the drug willingly she might, might, face some punishment that is almost as bad) let alone be killed for it. But you may also think being a Spectre means you are like a Judge from Judge Dread; and you weight the evidence and think the punishment fits the crime; so there is some logic for doing it, still it seems wrong to me based on the way the real world works.

Interrupts: Just do them, or not. I do some, shooting the mech (i don't even get this, it's not a person why is it renegade?) on Garrus' recruitment mission, shooting the Eclipse mercs on Miranda's loyalty mission (I do it cause they've made it clear I'll have to kill them any way), but for the most part I don't. Like punching a certain stupid reporter, I don't because I'd rather make her look stupid with logic and facts then give her a legitimate reason to have a smear campaign launched against me. But to me the interrupts are there so I as a paragon can be a jerk every so often or you as a renegade can be nice a few times; they don't define you to the core like the dialog option do which only unlock as you build your personality while interrupt are available to everyone. So do it if you want to.

The worker's on Zaeed's loyalty mission: I save them, and to me it makes the most sense. However, I go into it only if I can talk him down, he risked the mission, as my Shep says. It's about the mission and that was saving the factory from the Blue Suns, not killing some random (to me anyway) guy. Someone not caring that a bunch of innocent people will BURN alive is not renegade, it a sociopath. Zaeed is admittedly a sociopath, my Shep is not.

The Greybox: I destroy it, it's only logical, it's what he wanted so Kasume knows its what's right too.

There is more but I feel like I may have said enough (or too much? lol) so I'll stop now, if you read it all then we can talk and I'll address legitimate disagreements, otherwise that's fine; but I think all my points are valid.

[111987]

TCBC_Freak wrote...
*snip*

Good points, but I just wanted to point out about the Collector Base that Collector tech =/= Reaper tech. The only things that have been shown to indoctrinate are Reapers and Reaper artifacts; the Collector Base is neither, and the Human Reaper exploded and wasn't even complete, so it shouldn't be able to indoctrinate.

[TCBC_Freak]

111987 wrote...

TCBC_Freak wrote...
*snip*

Good points, but I just wanted to point out about the Collector Base that Collector tech =/= Reaper tech. The only things that have been shown to indoctrinate are Reapers and Reaper artifacts; the Collector Base is neither, and the Human Reaper exploded and wasn't even complete, so it shouldn't be able to indoctrinate.

True, that is a fair point, but it is still a risk. There could be Reaper tech in parts of the base we dont see, and we don't know how much of the human reaper is left or how much Reaper is needed to cause the problem. But I guess I see your point, its a gamble so some might roll the dice.

[BlueMagitek]

Completely throwing out a cache of technology because it can be dangerous is silly; yes, there may be something that can indoctrinate in there (though the Collectors wouldn't have any need of it), but hey, then we have something we can study. The more we know about indoctrination, the more we can fight it later.

[Bigdoser]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

My thoughts: (disclaimer, I only got to page eight before I had to say something, lol.)

About the Collector Base first: Destroying it is the only logical option, why? Reaper Tech is proven to indoctrinate, this is fact, even small amounts cause indoctrination. ME1, Saran as first example of this FACT, Cerberus op using dragon's teeth now known to be reaper tech lead to the death of the team/indoctrination and husk-ification, disabled ship in side quest reaper tech crew indoctrinated, and Salarian STG team members captured and held for only a few days to a week, indoctrinated. ME2, Mine with reaper tech in it, miners indoctrinated and husks built by the tech; a dead Reaper indoctrinated the team sent to it, and do I honestly need to bring up Arrival?? All facts point to this one out come.....a fully functional Collector base filled with active Reaper tech will lead to indoctrination!!! There is no reason to keep it, it WILL indoctrinate people; that's what even "dead" Reaper tech does, why wouldn't active Reaper stuff?? Even if you trust Cerberus now to have the best intentions why would you trust a base full of Reaper tech not to indoctrinate them?

The Council: I can give that as being either or, it really depends purely on personality, both options hold weight. Renegade = must stop Sovereign so need to save ships for that; Paragon = when this is over we need stability, a standing council will be able to give that better than a bunch of green councilors. It can go either way and those are only two possible ways to think about it. Without meta-gaming there is no right or wrong and both are logical.

The Rachni: A big part is once again you as a person. Meta-game says having the Rachni against the Reapers will pay off but even then its a gamble. It's purely up to you as a person, there is no right or wrong and both can be justified with logic.

The Genophage Cure: Keeping it and giving it to Wrex to use as he sees fit (which my guess would be small doses to Urdnot females) is the most logical option but we don't have it in ME2 (I think we might in ME3 trough). Baring that, destroying it makes sense, but it's up to you. Do you trust Mordin, then letting him keep it is a good idea too, which I do trust him so I let him hold onto it to decide what to do with later.

Veetor: The only info we need from him is the data on the Collectors and how they capture the people, all of which we get from Tali before we leave, she gives us, right then, his omni-tool data. There is no reason to hold a sick traumatized man.

The Geth: This is a hard one. Honestly, I don't see either option as really being paragon. You are either killing millions of geth or basically brain washing them and removing their free will. No wonder Legion was undecided! I rewrite for a simple reason, if you kill these heretics there may be more off base who could start back up again and rewrite Legion's geth later. If you rewrite then those geth not on the heretic base will link up later and also be rewritten. That's my logic for the rewrite.

Garrus' Loyalty mission: I personally wouldn't let a friend become a murder. That's just me, maybe your a terrible friend who doesn't care about a person's long term mental health but it is proven fact that something like 90% of people who kill out of revenge or anger become mentally ill after years of struggling with what they've done.

Anything were you kill a criminal: I'm a Spectre, I serve the people and the law. For me that means due process. Capture if possible, kill only if I have to, release them if I can't bring them to proper justice now for lack of evidence. Sorry if think that's dumb but if you don't like that then I'm glad you don't have a hand in writing our real world laws or my uncle would be dead as he was falsely accused of a murder...you guys would have killed him as he was the prime suspect all the way up till the real guilty party confessed after being arrested for possession of a narcotic. And in the real world a person like Shiala who was basically drugged by a third party would not even go to jail for what they may have done while drugged (note if she had taken the drug willingly she might, might, face some punishment that is almost as bad) let alone be killed for it. But you may also think being a Spectre means you are like a Judge from Judge Dread; and you weight the evidence and think the punishment fits the crime; so there is some logic for doing it, still it seems wrong to me based on the way the real world works.

Interrupts: Just do them, or not. I do some, shooting the mech (i don't even get this, it's not a person why is it renegade?) on Garrus' recruitment mission, shooting the Eclipse mercs on Miranda's loyalty mission (I do it cause they've made it clear I'll have to kill them any way), but for the most part I don't. Like punching a certain stupid reporter, I don't because I'd rather make her look stupid with logic and facts then give her a legitimate reason to have a smear campaign launched against me. But to me the interrupts are there so I as a paragon can be a jerk every so often or you as a renegade can be nice a few times; they don't define you to the core like the dialog option do which only unlock as you build your personality while interrupt are available to everyone. So do it if you want to.

The worker's on Zaeed's loyalty mission: I save them, and to me it makes the most sense. However, I go into it only if I can talk him down, he risked the mission, as my Shep says. It's about the mission and that was saving the factory from the Blue Suns, not killing some random (to me anyway) guy. Someone not caring that a bunch of innocent people will BURN alive is not renegade, it a sociopath. Zaeed is admittedly a sociopath, my Shep is not.

The Greybox: I destroy it, it's only logical, it's what he wanted so Kasume knows its what's right too.

There is more but I feel like I may have said enough (or too much? lol) so I'll stop now, if you read it all then we can talk and I'll address legitimate disagreements, otherwise that's fine; but I think all my points are valid.

This is how I normally view things when I play mass effect.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 02 octobre 2011 - 04:24 .

[Sethan_1]

I've spared the Rachni queen on every playthrough. That said, killing her is the sensible option.

In the Rachni war, the queen said the Rachni of the time were 'forced' into the war. From the description, they weren't coerced. They were controlled/indoctrinated. Given that the Rachni are telepathic, there's a good chance it could happen to the entire species again when the Reapers arrive. Thus, killing the queen makes more sense.

[111987]

Sethan_1 wrote...

I've spared the Rachni queen on every playthrough. That said, killing her is the sensible option.

In the Rachni war, the queen said the Rachni of the time were 'forced' into the war. From the description, they weren't coerced. They were controlled/indoctrinated. Given that the Rachni are telepathic, there's a good chance it could happen to the entire species again when the Reapers arrive. Thus, killing the queen makes more sense.

But you don't know that at the time of the decision.

[Kaiser Shepard]

111987 wrote...

Sethan_1 wrote...

I've spared the Rachni queen on every playthrough. That said, killing her is the sensible option.

In the Rachni war, the queen said the Rachni of the time were 'forced' into the war. From the description, they weren't coerced. They were controlled/indoctrinated. Given that the Rachni are telepathic, there's a good chance it could happen to the entire species again when the Reapers arrive. Thus, killing the queen makes more sense.

But you don't know that at the time of the decision.

Hence why you should just put it down regardless.

[111987]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

111987 wrote...

Sethan_1 wrote...

I've spared the Rachni queen on every playthrough. That said, killing her is the sensible option.

In the Rachni war, the queen said the Rachni of the time were 'forced' into the war. From the description, they weren't coerced. They were controlled/indoctrinated. Given that the Rachni are telepathic, there's a good chance it could happen to the entire species again when the Reapers arrive. Thus, killing the queen makes more sense.

But you don't know that at the time of the decision.

Hence why you should just put it down regardless.

So we should kill the last member of a species because in the past, other memebers of that species caused a war? Even though this last member was just an egg at the time?

Under that thinking, every time a nation wins a war, they should totally wipe out the losing nation.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

So we should kill the last member of a species because in the past, other memebers of that species caused a war? Even though this last member was just an egg at the time?

Under that thinking, every time a nation wins a war, they should totally wipe out the losing nation.

Species aren't the same as nations. The real analogy would be, oh, closer to plague-carriers. Or zombies, which is much the same thing.

Should we kill the last (zombie) because in the past, other (zombies) caused a war and nearly wiped out the galaxy? Even though this (zombie) was just freshly bitten at the time?

The answer to this would be, well, yes. Of course: the zombies may be a population group, but that doesn't change the threat they represent as a group. It's the nature of the threat and the nature of the group, not simply that it is a group, that matters.

We can work in a few other things.

Should we kill the last (galaxy-genociding gaint space Cthulu) because in the past, other (galaxy-genociding giant space Cthulu) caused wars and repeatedly wiped out the galaxy when they could? Even though this (galaxy-genociding giant space Cthulu) was made from Humans this cycle?

Should we kill the last (Heretic geth) because in the past, other (heretic geth) caused a war and nearly wiped out the galaxy? Even though this (Heretic geth) wasn't even a floppy disk at the time?

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

So we should kill the last member of a species because in the past, other memebers of that species caused a war? Even though this last member was just an egg at the time?

Under that thinking, every time a nation wins a war, they should totally wipe out the losing nation.

Species aren't the same as nations. The real analogy would be, oh, closer to plague-carriers. Or zombies, which is much the same thing.

Should we kill the last (zombie) because in the past, other (zombies) caused a war and nearly wiped out the galaxy? Even though this (zombie) was just freshly bitten at the time?

The answer to this would be, well, yes. Of course: the zombies may be a population group, but that doesn't change the threat they represent as a group. It's the nature of the threat and the nature of the group, not simply that it is a group, that matters.

We can work in a few other things.

Should we kill the last (galaxy-genociding gaint space Cthulu) because in the past, other (galaxy-genociding giant space Cthulu) caused wars and repeatedly wiped out the galaxy when they could? Even though this (galaxy-genociding giant space Cthulu) was made from Humans this cycle?

Should we kill the last (Heretic geth) because in the past, other (heretic geth) caused a war and nearly wiped out the galaxy? Even though this (Heretic geth) wasn't even a floppy disk at the time?

That isn't a fair analogy either. Zombies, by nature, are dangerous to other forms of life; their entire purpose as a 'species' is to kill and infect others. That isn't true of the Rachni.

Same with the Human Reaper; it's entire purpose, the purpose of every Reaper, is to wipe out organics. Are you saying the entire purpose of the Rachni is to start wars with other species?

Once again, Heretic Geth are not the same as Rachni. All Heretic Geth, by nature, serve the Reapers; it is what makes them 'Heretics'. Rachni by nature do not serve the Reapers.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

That isn't a fair analogy either. Zombies, by nature, are dangerous to other forms of life; their entire purpose as a 'species' is to kill and infect others. That isn't true of the Rachni.

By the history of the Rachni, both in the Rachni Wars and in the majority of our experience with living Rachni, 'hyper-aggressive territorial homicidal bugs' pretty much is their nature.

Same with the Human Reaper; it's entire purpose, the purpose of every Reaper, is to wipe out organics. Are you saying the entire purpose of the Rachni is to start wars with other species?

That is what the historic record of the Rachni tells us. They grow, they expand their territory, and then when someone (anyone) encroaches the Rachni defend the **** out of it. That can be seen through the prism of the Rachni Wars, and that can also be seen through what occured on Peak 15.

The Human Reaper had no history of sin. The Rachni Queen had no history of sin. The judgement we make about their 'purpose' is based on comparison to others of the same species based on actions made before their 'birth.' All Reapers before the incomplete Human Reaper were genocidal technological singularities, ergo the Human Reaper is going to have to be one as well even if it isn't initiating any hostilities while we stand around discussing it's abortion.

Carry that to the Queen, who is the one sole non-homicidal Rachni we apparently meet... and that may well be because she's intelligent, young, and trapped behind a wall at our mercy, not because she isn't going to be homicidal in the future.

Once again, Heretic Geth are not the same as Rachni. All Heretic Geth, by nature, serve the Reapers; it is what makes them 'Heretics'. Rachni by nature do not serve the Reapers.

Besides quibbling semantics (are Heretics defined as Geth who serve the Reapers, or are any Geth who do not achieve consensus with the majority on any issue?) and unknown facts (the Rachni were indoctrinated, and we have no understanding how such carries through their peculiar inhereted memory), you missed (and in doing so proved) the important point: genocide's weight is based on what sort of group we're talking about, not that it is a group at all.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 02 octobre 2011 - 08:11 .

[Sethan_1]

111987 wrote...

Sethan_1 wrote...

I've spared the Rachni queen on every playthrough. That said, killing her is the sensible option.

In the Rachni war, the queen said the Rachni of the time were 'forced' into the war. From the description, they weren't coerced. They were controlled/indoctrinated. Given that the Rachni are telepathic, there's a good chance it could happen to the entire species again when the Reapers arrive. Thus, killing the queen makes more sense.

But you don't know that at the time of the decision.

Actually you do - The Rachni queen tells you as much, before you have to make the decision.

[111987]

Sethan_1 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Sethan_1 wrote...

I've spared the Rachni queen on every playthrough. That said, killing her is the sensible option.

In the Rachni war, the queen said the Rachni of the time were 'forced' into the war. From the description, they weren't coerced. They were controlled/indoctrinated. Given that the Rachni are telepathic, there's a good chance it could happen to the entire species again when the Reapers arrive. Thus, killing the queen makes more sense.

But you don't know that at the time of the decision.

Actually you do - The Rachni queen tells you as much, before you have to make the decision.

The Rachni Queen does not say anything about indoctrination until Mass Effect 2, on Illium.

[Dean_the_Young]

Without proof of the, ahem, convenient excuse of indoctrination, unless you do Noveria after Virmire, any defense of 'we were indoctrinated' really should be taken with a grain of salt the size of the Citadel.

[111987]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

111987 wrote...

That isn't a fair analogy either. Zombies, by nature, are dangerous to other forms of life; their entire purpose as a 'species' is to kill and infect others. That isn't true of the Rachni.

By the history of the Rachni, both in the Rachni Wars and in the majority of our experience with living Rachni, 'hyper-aggressive territorial homicidal bugs' pretty much is their nature.

Same with the Human Reaper; it's entire purpose, the purpose of every Reaper, is to wipe out organics. Are you saying the entire purpose of the Rachni is to start wars with other species?

That is what the historic record of the Rachni tells us. They grow, they expand their territory, and then when someone (anyone) encroaches the Rachni defend the **** out of it. That can be seen through the prism of the Rachni Wars, and that can also be seen through what occured on Peak 15.

The Human Reaper had no history of sin. The Rachni Queen had no history of sin. The judgement we make about their 'purpose' is based on comparison to others of the same species based on actions made before their 'birth.' All Reapers before the incomplete Human Reaper were genocidal technological singularities, ergo the Human Reaper is going to have to be one as well even if it isn't initiating any hostilities while we stand around discussing it's abortion.

Carry that to the Queen, who is the one sole non-homicidal Rachni we apparently meet... and that may well be because she's intelligent, young, and trapped behind a wall at our mercy, not because she isn't going to be homicidal in the future.

Once again, Heretic Geth are not the same as Rachni. All Heretic Geth, by nature, serve the Reapers; it is what makes them 'Heretics'. Rachni by nature do not serve the Reapers.

Besides quibbling semantics (are Heretics defined as Geth who serve the Reapers, or are any Geth who do not achieve consensus with the majority on any issue?) and unknown facts (the Rachni were indoctrinated, and we have no understanding how such carries through their peculiar inhereted memory), you missed (and in doing so proved) the important point: genocide's weight is based on what sort of group we're talking about, not that it is a group at all.

You're dancing around the issue of purpose. The Human Reaper is created to continue the cycle harvesting, as that is why it's being built. That is a fundamental part of their existence. The Rachni are very territorial, but are not outwardly aggresive like the Reapers, Heretic Geth, etc...Their purpose and goals does not line in the harming, destruction, or subjugation of others.

I understand your points, but comparing the Rachni to the Reapers or Geth isn't a fair compairson.

[Dean_the_Young]

111987 wrote...

You're dancing around the issue of purpose. The Human Reaper is created to continue the cycle harvesting, as that is why it's being built. That is a fundamental part of their existence.

And the Rachni Queen was was bred by a species-group fanatically devoted to destroying all the intruders. The purpose of the breeding certainly wasn't to make peace with the non-Rachni: the Rachni Queen's displacement was an accident of history.

There are a lot of arguments you could make, such as the ability of individuals to make their own choices in their own circumstances and not be bound to the ideals of the parents. Arguing the later, which you do just now, directly condemns not only the Human Reaper, but the Rachni Queen herself. She was conceived to continue the war of an species. If parental intent condemns the Human Reaper, than so it does the Rachni Queen.

Guilt-by-blood is a double-edged sword. If you use it against the Human Reaper, denying it against the Rachni Queen is hypocrisy of the finist caliber.

The Rachni are very territorial, but are not outwardly aggresive like the Reapers,

You, ahem, realize that the Salarian motto of 'hold the line' started with reference to the Rachni, yes?

Once the Council explorers found them, the Rachni were the invaders.

Heretic Geth, etc...Their purpose and goals does not line in the harming, destruction, or subjugation of others.

I understand your points,

Considering you just foul balled the last one, probably not...

but comparing the Rachni to the Reapers or Geth isn't a fair compairson.

It certainly is, unless you intend to argue that Reapers and Geth lack the ability of self-determination and are chained by instinct (which would conflict with what we know of them) while the Rachni do have free will and self-determination (which nothing in history or experience suggests or supports).

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 02 octobre 2011 - 08:52 .