529 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

Let me jump in on the Council decision (this one riles me up for some reason).  There's plenty of good reasons to save the Council.  Going on what we know at the time (no metagaming), we know:

1.  The Destiny Ascension is the most powerful ship in the Citadel fleet (with range).
2.  The Council is on the Destiny Ascension.
3.  Failing to destroy the Geth attacking the Destiny Ascension means that they can then flank the Alliance fleet.
4.  If the Geth flank the Alliance fleet, the fleet will be between the anvil (Sovereign) and the hammer (the Geth).
5.  Letting the Council die and then beating Sovereign makes humans seem like opportunists bent on seizing control.
6.  The resulting distrust from number 5 could conceivably mean civil war and strife, meaning greater disunity when the Reapers do eventually arrive.
7.  Before the arms open, there's no reason not to engage the Geth, as Sovereign is inaccessible.  Might as well thin the herd a bit.

Regardless of your feelings about the Council, the Ascension, or the battle logistics, causing civil war and strife in the brief period before the Reapers do get here is just as huge of a risk as not being able to defeat Sovereign in the first place.  Realize that even with Sovereign defeated, the Reapers are still coming, and you are going to need all the help you can get down the road.

As for the OP, I'd say that it varies wildly depending on context.  In most situations, I'd say that no, the ends don't justify the means.  This isn't a straight "needs of the many" type of situation.  That type of thinking leads to what the American founding fathers were so leery of, mob rule.  This is why today we have majority rules with minority rights.  It needs to be taken into account who the many are, and who the few are.  Sometimes the few really are more valuable.  Again, context.

[ediskrad327]

at the cost of loosing everything we know. yes, some sacrifices would be hard, some will be hard. i will avoid sacrificing lives if possible, but i will if it is necessary to win this war

[wizardryforever]

Saphra Deden wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

1.  The Destiny Ascension is the most powerful ship in the Citadel fleet (with range).

It is dead in the water and is trying to retreat anyway.

2.  The Council is on the Destiny Ascension.

Your point is?

3.  Failing to destroy the Geth attacking the Destiny Ascension means that they can then flank the Alliance fleet.

That is not even true. The rest of the Citade fleet can be seen arriving as the DA blows up. Regardless, there are geth EVERYWHERE. Destroying these geths gains you nothing because you don't even surprise them. At least if you go after Sovereign first you can get a head start and maybe open fire on it before the geth have a chance to engage you.

4.  If the Geth flank the Alliance fleet, the fleet will be between the anvil (Sovereign) and the hammer (the Geth).

Again: the geth are EVERYWHERE. The geth attacking the DA are not the only geth.

5.  Letting the Council die and then beating Sovereign makes humans seem like opportunists bent on seizing control.

Saving the Council and then losing to Sovereign means the Council and everyone else dies anyway so this won't matter.

6.  The resulting distrust from number 5 could conceivably mean civil war and strife, meaning greater disunity when the Reapers do eventually arrive.

Failing to stop Sovereign means none of this happens.

7.  Before the arms open, there's no reason not to engage the Geth, as Sovereign is inaccessible.  Might as well thin the herd a bit.

Yes, there is reason not to engage the geth. Engaging them puts the Alliance at risks and causes you to lose ships. This spells out for you before you make the choice.

There's no way to "get a head start," because the arms aren't open until you make the Council decision.  Thus, leaving the Council to die means that the Alliance fleet just stands by and waits for the arms to open, engaging nobody. 

And apparently, you didn't read my second paragraph that sums up my argument, you only read my support.  It would seem that my initial impression that people who make this decision are short-sighted would be true, if your behavior is any indication, Saphra.

[Lotion Soronarr]

wizardryforever wrote...
There's no way to "get a head start," because the arms aren't open until you make the Council decision.  Thus, leaving the Council to die means that the Alliance fleet just stands by and waits for the arms to open, engaging nobody. 

And apparently, you didn't read my second paragraph that sums up my argument, you only read my support.  It would seem that my initial impression that people who make this decision are short-sighted would be true, if your behavior is any indication, Saphra.

Don't take the cutscenes as 100% accurate, since they arne't. Mind you that the citadle fleet is far from destroyed and is fighting geth.
The 5th Fleet moves in to save the DA SPECIFICLY - not the entire Citadel fleet.
If the 5th Fleet waits, it waits to conserve it's maximum combat strength when it pounces on Sovereign.

Do you risk ships that you might need to take out Sovereign to save DA?

[mauro2222]

knightnblu wrote...

Some would say that the ends do in fact, justify any means. Some say no and then there are points all in between. This is because morality is not a strictly defined construct. We are born with some innate morals which are shared universally. Other morals are constructed because each individual society requires them. But there is also a point at which a human being wounds his soul because he has crossed some line.
 
I do not speak of the soul in the religious sense, but as the essence of a human being. While we are familiar with the dark hero archetype haunted by his past actions, what we are not so familiar with is that this effect can extend to entire nations of people and if it can impact an entire nation, then it must be possible to so wound an entire race.
 
On this basis, I posit that the ends do not justify the means and that by so doing one does damage to one's own soul. If the damage is great enough and the participation wide enough, then one can damage the soul of a nation. Go up another couple of magnitude and I am positive that one can wound the soul of humanity.

This was so good. I'm glad that there is people like you

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.

Also in regard to the DA. The choice to save it doesn't matter anyway. You can save it and still defeat Sovereign. You can let it die and still defeat Sovereign. There really is no choice. The problem is killing Sovereign. Your only choice is do you want to save the DA in the process of killing Sovereign -- you are going to destroy Sovereign anyway. It doesn't matter. It only cosmetically changes ME2.

And it causes an arms race between humans and Turians again. Woopdedoo. The net effect in ME3 is going to be zero. The differences are going to be cameo appearences, and various animosities between factions, and how things get put together after the reapers are defeated: do we all get along as one big happy family? or do we start a cold war? I'll leave that to ME4.

It'll default to the cold war for ME4 because that will make a better story. That story won't be Shepard's.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 24 décembre 2011 - 09:47 .

[wizardryforever]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

Can anyone dispute the fact that the Alliance Fleet has to fight it's way through the geth forces to reach the Citadel?

Since when did it need to do that?

How come you can't defend your decision with anything from the game? The game lays out the choice for you and what you are doing.

Save the DA = you will be weaker now, but stronger later
Don't save the DA = you will be stronger now, but weaker later

That's how the game breaks down the choice.

Saving the DA just made the loses count for something.

How do the losses "count for something" when your losses are now heavier and your ability to defeat the Big Bad is now dminished?

Just a few minor corrections there that you refuse to acknowledge.

Because those losses now mean that the inevitable return of the Reapers won't be met with a divided galaxy already at each other's throats, maybe?

[wizardryforever]

Saphra Deden wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Just a few minor corrections there that you refuse to acknowledge.

Sure, but the "later" part won't ever happen if you lose now.

And how is losing now any worse than losing later?  Hint: it isn't.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

The same number of ships being lost using either choice?  I don't know.  Maybe it proves that ships are lost no matter our choice.  Or, just maybe, it shows the choice we made had nothing at all to do with logistics in battle.

Oh but clearly it did, at the time. Maybe later we found out our choice was pointless but that doesn't matter.

I hate meta-gamers.

The thing is that once you've explored the dialogue lines ME2 regarding the DA after having done it both ways, you find out that it doesn't matter anyway. So if you then do a third playthrough of ME1 at that point to say get an additional achievement for a different class, you're going to end up meta-gaming your way through it regardless. It cannot be helped at that point. You will meta-game subconsciously.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

So what do you think, do the ends truly justify the means? Would you be willing to do the unthinkable if the outcome was favorable and if so why? Lets discuss this over tea and strumpets shall we.

In Mass Effect?  No... doing the "morally ideal" thing always yields the best results (no matter what the odds are).