535 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Shepard]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

Why I am not surprised that you came to that conclusion?

Perhaps because I've been trying to figure out why / how people could be fans of Cerberus for a while, and that post isn't any kind of answer.

It's mostly just the stylish logo.

[CrutchCricket]

Title may be misleading but arguments are fairly sound.

[Ieldra]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...
Why I am not surprised that you came to that conclusion?

Perhaps because I've been trying to figure out why / how people could be fans of Cerberus for a while, and that post isn't any kind of answer.

It's certainly not the answer you want to hear, obviously. Whether it has merit as an answer, well, forgive me if I won't accept your judgment on the matter. If you don't even get the difference between being a Cerberus fan and being critical but refusing to deny them any merit, I have nothing more to say.

[Xilizhra]

Decent, but mostly as a way of showing why people support Cerberus in a meta sort of way. Regardless of whether the organization is illogically, unrealistically cruel (which I don't feel it was; for instance, the point of Teltin was to cause suffering to increase biotic power), it changes none of the facts about the universe, and invoking metagame issues doesn't change a whit of Cerberus' evil.

In fact, I can think of reasons that Overlord would logically look like that. Obviously he needed to be fed. To adequately control the geth and move them around, he needed to see, and couldn't be allowed to prevent himself from doing so. Giving him a chair would be a waste of resources and take up too much space if he was going to be strapped into one position in any case. And it was hideous because no one was supposed to see it. Finally, I can see Archer making it look like that as a means to remind himself of the cost and to ensure that his resolve remained honestly strong.

[TobyHasEyes]

 Its not a decisive point, but it does seem like the OP is less 'arguments for Cerberus' and more 'why I am not convinced by arguments against Cerberus'

 Which again.. says nothing of the content or the strength of the argument, but it just means that someone could agree with the OP's evaluation of every argument listed, and still have 'other' reasons to discount Cerberus

 For what it is worth, I am not certain that the section discussing consequentialism really is an argument for or against

[Killjoy Cutter]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

Why I am not surprised that you came to that conclusion?

Perhaps because I've been trying to figure out why / how people could be fans of Cerberus for a while, and that post isn't any kind of answer.

It's certainly not the answer you want to hear, obviously. Whether it has merit as an answer, well, forgive me if I won't accept your judgment on the matter. If you don't even get the difference between being a Cerberus fan and being critical but refusing to deny them any merit, I have nothing more to say.

I get the difference. 

The problem is, you open with the statement that you're going to explain the support -- "In this thread, I'd like to shed light on the question of why people support Cerberus" -- and then spend many paragraphs explaining why we shouldn't be as opposed.  You don't deliver.  Instead, you spend a lot of time talking about how the reasons for opposing Cerberus should be questioned, stated as:  "(1) The problem of invoking evil by association, (2) Presentation failure: trying too hard, (3) Of evil methods and not-so-evil causes, (4) The bad name and the not-so-bad reality of consequentialism"


(Personally, I don't care that Cerberus is trying to find ways to make soldiers more effective.  I care that they're recklessly messing around with Rachni, creepers, husks, and thresher maws in the attempt to do it.)

[oyukichan]

Silent X wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Of course, Cerberus does quite obviously not represent that face as a whole, but since you can, for various reasons already mentioned, dismiss the more monstrous acts as "not being the real Cerberus", it becomes possible to posit that Cerberus advances a desirable agenda, and that apart of a few "accidents", it goes about it by means that are, if morally problematic, nonetheless justified.

This is where I have to disagree. I think I get what you're saying, but I don't come to the same conclusion. I've never bought that the experiments at the Teltin facility or Project Overlord were "not the real Cerberus." What I see in those instances is the Illusive Man, an individual wholly focused on results, giving a cell a goal and license to do whateve they see fit in order to achieve that goal. His purported ignorance of just what was going on in these instances strikes me not as innocence but rather as a savvy leader making sure he always maintains plausible deniability. If he really cared what his subordinates were up to, he would pay more attention. By giving them free reign, he maximizes his chances to get what he wants from their operations while keeping a distance that allows him to claim, "I didn't know what they were doing." I'm convinced that he makes a point of not knowing what his cells are doing just so he can pull out that excuse. And yes, I am definitely making an inference here, but it fits the available information, as far as I can see, so I think it's as valid as any other inference.

This. 1000x this. From the games, books, & comics, this is how I view Cerberus and the Illusive Man.

As for supporting Cerberus or not... I don't. Because even had I wanted to advance the human agenda (and I don't, I'm all for diversity in all respects), I personally would feel obligated to police the hell out of my organization. Experiments on volunteers, not whoever you can get your hands on. Don't mess with children. Period. Etc... TIM may have good intentions, but he fails miserably at responsibility. I also don't think one can reasonably lump TIM & Cerberus together. Cerberus, as an organization, is the sum of its parts. Some of those parts probably do good things. The parts we've run into over the course of the story tend to be the rotten parts.

Modifié par AurinShepard, 22 novembre 2011 - 07:02 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Tonymac wrote...

At the end of ME2 Shepard explains to TIM that he will not sacrafice the soul of our species to win the war with the Reapers.  I believe that this epitomizes the difference between good and evil.   We have morals, and we stand by them because they define us.  To lose our morals is to lose ourselves, our souls.....

Sheps lines there were pure garbage.
"Soul of the species?" How the frack does a species loses it's "soul" by utilizing enemy technology?
Brainless, breainless, brainless. That entire sequence has me seeting with rage...

One of the things that makes Cerberus so bad is the 'advancement of humanity' bit.  Now look.....  I hate batarians.  If I could cue the 'duelling banjos' or that scene from pulp fiction and let the batarians have it, I would.  They are evil slavers, and for the most part suck.  However, if I do tha tthen I am no better than Cerberus, am I?  The galaxy has to work together to stop the reapers.  In fact, we need a lot of help from races that are not even here anymore, like the Protheans.  Either we stand together, or fall forver.  This means that there is NO group that comes first. 

A hero puts the lives of others before their own.  Would a mother leave her child still in a crib to escape a burning house?  Did the firefighters at the world trade center quit and leave because it was hopeless?  We do what we must - even in the face of imminent death.  It is no different in this galactic war.  We will make our advancements across the galaxy, isolating reapers (if possible), sharing our IFF and technology, standing as one.  If the reapers can make Krogan, Asari, Batarian and all of these other Husks work together to crush the opposition, then we must be willing to stand as effective units.  We need allies, and to work together on the unit level and the galactic level, sharing rescources, helping eachother out, and surviving this reaper invasion.  

Since when does Cerberus try to devide anyone? Sicne when is Cerberus agasint cooperation with other species?
If anything Cerberus has been attempting to improve relations between humanity and other species.
Case in point - Salarians, genophage and the Pope.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Tonymac wrote...

At the end of ME2 Shepard explains to TIM that he will not sacrafice the soul of our species to win the war with the Reapers.  I believe that this epitomizes the difference between good and evil.   We have morals, and we stand by them because they define us.  To lose our morals is to lose ourselves, our souls....

Sheps lines there were pure garbage.
"Soul of the species?" How the frack does a species loses it's "soul" by utilizing enemy technology?
Brainless, breainless, brainless. That entire sequence has me seeting with rage...

We're not talking about stealing a better rifle... 

[Ieldra]

@AurinShepard:
Perhaps I failed to convey that I didn't really agree with the "this isn't really Cerberus" argument. I only said it's possible, if not exactly savvy, to posit it, should you wish to support Cerberus for any reason.

I did say that I personally find it tempting to follow that argument, because I think "advancement of humanity", or at least a certain understanding of it, is a worthwhile agenda and there should be a non-evil organization devoted to it. That it is tempting, however, does not mean I actually follow it.

[khevan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Tonymac wrote...

At the end of ME2 Shepard explains to TIM that he will not sacrafice the soul of our species to win the war with the Reapers.  I believe that this epitomizes the difference between good and evil.   We have morals, and we stand by them because they define us.  To lose our morals is to lose ourselves, our souls....

Sheps lines there were pure garbage.
"Soul of the species?" How the frack does a species loses it's "soul" by utilizing enemy technology?
Brainless, breainless, brainless. That entire sequence has me seeting with rage...

We're not talking about stealing a better rifle... 

Actually...in a sense, yes we are.  There are multiple reasons for being wary of the Collector Base choice as presented in game.  There may (or may not) be danger of indoctrination, the fact that the game gives the collector base to TIM instead of saving it for the Alliance/Council, but the "moral" argument is essentially the same as someone opposing the use of AK-47 rifles because it is a weapon system that has killed more people in the last 50-60 years than any other.

Yes, what was done in the Collector base is an abomination.  It's horrific, terrible, and many other adjectives besides.  But it is worth saving if only to study the base to see if there's anything that can be used against the reapers.  Tossing away a potential resource like that because of repugnance for what happened there...that's a knee-jerk emotional reaction rather than a purely moral one.  To my mind, it's more "moral" to save the base, study it, and use the technology against the Reapers (if possible) to avenge those who lost their lives there.  It's "immoral" to throw away such potential and let all of those lives be lost in vain.

However, this is my personal opinion.  YMMV.

[TobyHasEyes]

 nvm 

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 22 novembre 2011 - 07:22 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

I kinda ignore the particulars of Shep's rant, and blow the thing for less "omg icky!" reasons.

[General User]

Let's imagine that, during the First Contact War, a team of Alliance Marines captured a turian space-station/shipyard. Better yet, a turian space-station/shipyard that was using captured humans as slave labor (so you have an element of horror/revulsion to it, like in the CB situation).

Would you save that turian base or (after evacuating the captives of course) blow it up? 

What if it was a team of Cerberus Commandos instead of Alliance Marines?

Modifié par General User, 22 novembre 2011 - 07:49 .

[TobyHasEyes]

General User wrote...

Let's imagine that, during the First Contact War, a team of Alliance Marines captured a turian space-station/shipyard. Better yet, a turian space-station/shipyard that was using captured humans as slave labor (so you have an element of horror/revulsion to it, like in the CB situation).

Would you save that turian base or (after evacuating the captives of course) blow it up?

 Are we doing this? Are we making this a Collectors Base discussion?

 After evacuating the base, do you blow it up, or do you hand it to the Soviet Union (if it still existed, and was even more dysfunctional)? An organisation that is extremely poorly managed, with a reputation for losing important technology and cocking up experiments with nearly apocalyptic consequences?

 That is a more appropriate list of the choices available to us

[Killjoy Cutter]

General User wrote...

Let's imagine that, during the First Contact War, a team of Alliance Marines captured a turian space-station/shipyard. Better yet, a turian space-station/shipyard that was using captured humans as slave labor (so you have an element of horror/revulsion to it, like in the CB situation).

Would you save that turian base or (after evacuating the captives of course) blow it up?

The Turian base probably didn't come with a high risk of turning anyone stationed there into a mindless cyberzombie, and the choice to save it probably didn't involve handing it over to a pathologically deceitful species-supremecist...

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 22 novembre 2011 - 07:48 .

[Sgt Stryker]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

General User wrote...

Let's imagine that, during the First Contact War, a team of Alliance Marines captured a turian space-station/shipyard. Better yet, a turian space-station/shipyard that was using captured humans as slave labor (so you have an element of horror/revulsion to it, like in the CB situation).

Would you save that turian base or (after evacuating the captives of course) blow it up?

 Are we doing this? Are we making this a Collectors Base discussion?

 After evacuating the base, do you blow it up, or do you hand it to the Soviet Union (if it still existed, and was even more dysfunctional)? An organisation that is extremely poorly managed, with a reputation for losing important technology and cocking up experiments with nearly apocalyptic consequences?

 That is a more appropriate list of the choices available to us

I agree. I would have loved to have the option to have Shepard say "I'd rather see the base vaporized than hand it over to the likes of you." However that didn't happen, so I guess we just have to DealWithIt.jpg

[General User]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

General User wrote...

Let's imagine that, during the First Contact War, a team of Alliance Marines captured a turian space-station/shipyard. Better yet, a turian space-station/shipyard that was using captured humans as slave labor (so you have an element of horror/revulsion to it, like in the CB situation).

Would you save that turian base or (after evacuating the captives of course) blow it up?

 Are we doing this? Are we making this a Collectors Base discussion?

 After evacuating the base, do you blow it up, or do you hand it to the Soviet Union (if it still existed, and was even more dysfunctional)? An organisation that is extremely poorly managed, with a reputation for losing important technology and cocking up experiments with nearly apocalyptic consequences?

 That is a more appropriate list of the choices available to us

Was the Soviet Union would the one that funded and supported the mission that lead to the base's capture? Did the NATO Powers vehemently insist that they wanted nothing to do with the whole affair (or even the war in general)?

If the answer to one or both of those is "yes", then you bet I'd hand it over to the Soviets!

Modifié par General User, 22 novembre 2011 - 07:54 .

[General User]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

General User wrote...

Let's imagine that, during the First Contact War, a team of Alliance Marines captured a turian space-station/shipyard. Better yet, a turian space-station/shipyard that was using captured humans as slave labor (so you have an element of horror/revulsion to it, like in the CB situation).

Would you save that turian base or (after evacuating the captives of course) blow it up?

The Turian base probably didn't come with a high risk of turning anyone stationed there into a mindless cyberzombie, and the choice to save it probably didn't involved handing it over to a pathologically deceitful species-supremecist...

What if you did, have to turn it over to someone like Cerberus that is?  Would you?

[Killjoy Cutter]

General User wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

General User wrote...

Let's imagine that, during the First Contact War, a team of Alliance Marines captured a turian space-station/shipyard. Better yet, a turian space-station/shipyard that was using captured humans as slave labor (so you have an element of horror/revulsion to it, like in the CB situation).

Would you save that turian base or (after evacuating the captives of course) blow it up?

The Turian base probably didn't come with a high risk of turning anyone stationed there into a mindless cyberzombie, and the choice to save it probably didn't involved handing it over to a pathologically deceitful species-supremecist...

What if you did, have to turn it over to someone like Cerberus that is?  Would you?

As I said, it depends on the risks going forward.  Cyberzombies, risk.  Cerberus, risk. 

[TobyHasEyes]

General User wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

General User wrote...

Let's imagine that, during the First Contact War, a team of Alliance Marines captured a turian space-station/shipyard. Better yet, a turian space-station/shipyard that was using captured humans as slave labor (so you have an element of horror/revulsion to it, like in the CB situation).

Would you save that turian base or (after evacuating the captives of course) blow it up?

 Are we doing this? Are we making this a Collectors Base discussion?

 After evacuating the base, do you blow it up, or do you hand it to the Soviet Union (if it still existed, and was even more dysfunctional)? An organisation that is extremely poorly managed, with a reputation for losing important technology and cocking up experiments with nearly apocalyptic consequences?

 That is a more appropriate list of the choices available to us

Was the Soviet Union would the one that funded and supported the mission that lead to the base's capture? Did the NATO Powers vehement insist that they want nothing to do with the whole affair (or even the war in general)?

If the answer to one or both of those is "yes", then you bet I'd hand it over to the Soviets!

 Even though - baring in mind for the purposes of a Cerberus comparison we have to exaggerate this - the atrocious mismanagement and radical experiments which have seen various destructive technologies unleashed, in one instance (Overlord) coming close to a technological apocalypse?

 I'd conclude that giving it to them has a far greater chance of damaging the war effort than aiding the war effort.

 A point aside, for the purposes of RP.. as the Reapers first stop has always been to the Citadel to isolate each system and slowly exterminate one system at a time, my Shepard has concluded that maintaining galactic unity will be of great importance. Given that Shepard at no point sees the scale of the Reaper threat, I don't think that is an unreasonable conclusion to reach, and it is one that made him wary of handing over tech to Cerberus

[phimseto]

My friend sent this to me after he finished the game way back when, mainly apropos of keeping the Collector Base, but it's still good commentary on Cerberus. I offer it for your consideration...


**********


And I keep coming to the conclusion that I was right. The Reapers came within a hair's breadth of coming through the Conduit and exterminating all sentient life in the galaxy. I continued my fight against the Reapers and paid for it by spending two years on an operating table. Once I came back, not only do I find out that absolutely *nothing* has been done to prepare for the Reapers over the last two years, the Citadel Council actually continues to deny that the Reapers exist.

Eight Systems Alliance frigates and their crews sacrificed themselves to save the Destiny Ascension and the Council from that Reaper. They deserve better than that. To add insult to injury, once the Systems Alliance's colonies start getting attacked, what support do they get from the Council? None. Cerberus, a private entity, has to step in.

That brings us to the Illusive Man. Aside from my teammates, my crew and Anderson, he's the only one who recognizes the threat. Does he have a hankerin' for galactic domination? Of course! Will he misuse that Reaper technology? Absolutely!

But keeping that base was still the right decision.

ARGUMENT 1: The Collector Base is proof that the Reapers exist.

At the very least, we needed to keep the Collector Base intact as something tangible, to prove that the Reapers are real. Not enough of Sovereign survived its destruction to prove the point, so I will lead the Council on a guided tour of the Collector Base if that's what I have to do to get them to wake up. If that motivates them, they're free to join the fight (but for reasons stated below, they will not lead).

ARGUMENT 2: What's good for Cerberus is good for the galaxy (at least for now).

One argument for destroying the Collector Base is that giving it to Cerberus would make Cerberus more powerful. However, Cerberus is the only organization willing to do anything about the Reapers. So how is Cerberus becoming more powerful a bad thing? We're all staring down the barrel of a gun -- if someone is willing to snatch that gun away, you can't concern yourself with what he might do with it later. At least you've bought yourself another breath.

ARGUMENT 3: We've been using Reaper technology all along.

To those who say that the Reaper technology is too dangerous to use, the Reapers built the Mass Relays, right? The Reapers built the Citadel too. The only difference between that technology and the Collector Base is that the Reapers WANTED us to have the Relays and the Citadel. The Reapers did NOT want us to have that Collector Base. We need to do the things that the sentient races did not do during the previous 1,000 or so extinction cycles if we want to survive. Fire can be dangerous, but it can also be useful. The same is true for any tool. This is the first tool that the Reapers would prefer us not to have.

ARGUMENT 4: No course of action is worse than inaction.

Now, here's the bad news for the non-human races. This tool belongs to Cerberus. Tom Shepard gave the Citadel a chance to lead, and they failed. There is no indication that they will ever be convinced. Now it's Cerberus' chance, and we can't possibly do any worse than the Citadel did. The Reapers are coming; we could only match the Council's failure by also doing nothing.

The Illusive Man was dead right when he said that we need each other, because we're the only ones who understand. All concerns are secondary to the Reaper threat. History shall vindicate me.