G Kevin wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
G Kevin wrote...
GuardianAngel470 wrote...
This boils down to a disturbing question in the end.
Do you judge a group on the merit of their actions or the function of their form?
Whether the OP and the rest of you know this or not, this argument has been going around for years on this forum. Geth or Quarian, Quarian or Geth. Who's right and who's wrong?
Every time, it boils down to a difference of opinion on the above question. Why would I pick a synthetic over an organic? The geth aren't sentient. The geth aren't deserving of protection. If your toaster/computer/phone/electrical-mechanical device gained sentience, you'd freak out.
All of these are old arguments.
Ultimately, the only thing that matters is where you stand on that question.
Answer honestly, if you were part of a single blind experiment in which the actions of two species were presented to you without context on the nature of those species, who would you side with? Species A, the geth, or Species B, the quarians? If all you knew about them was their actions toward each other, who would you side with?
Species A: Became aware, attacked in self defense, won their war, killed anyone who tried coming back, did not care for the rest of the galaxy.
Species B: Attacked their creation, some tried to protect them but military leaders disagreed, lost war, condemed by rest of galaxy, questioned their decisions.
Really hard to say based on actions because you would need to know which actions are considered.
So far I tried to keep it unbiased but I can't tell. I pick Species B because they reflected on their decision even after they were condemned.
If you're going to include this:
"some tried to protect them but military leaders disagreed"
You have to mention that members of Species A tried to surrender to protect members of Species B. There was a give and take on both sides in this regard so if you include one you have to include the other. Otherwise it isn't objective. Other than that your wording for Species B is overly sympathetic. For instance:
"condemed by rest of galaxy"
The above does not fit the premise. We are looking solely at a races actions, not how it is treated by others. If we were, we'd mention that Species A is universally hated and feared for acting in self defense, which would color any participant's assessment of said species.
Like I said, its hard to choose. Logically both sides had their rights and wrongs. With just actions, there is not enough information to make a decision.
True. Let's extend the premise to include the motivations of the actions. Species B acted initially to defend against a perceived threat. With that context, we can analyze the action itself. Namely, the choice to ignore alternatives to a situation they knew very little about. Fear of an assumed threat guided their actions. Those actions included the deactivation and/or destruction of a species they knew to be self aware.
Species A was motivated by a need to defend itself. This was done against a tangible threat that had been established as significant. A violent war erupts, one about which little specific is known. Species A may or may not have killed non-combatants, but later evidence suggests they did not.
In this case, a decision can't be made. While Species B acted rashly with intent to deactivate entities they knew to be self aware, Species A continued hostilities, also ignoring alternatives, ultimately leading to the near destruction of Species B.
Then Species A defeats Species B definitively and spares the remainder of the populace. It goes into isolation to avoid future conflict (per the Geth Server mission). It enforced this isolation brutally and violently, killing innocents to maintain it.
Species B on the other hand attempted to gain support of further species in an effort to retake their homeworld and colonies. Nothing wrong with that at all, to be clear.
Fast forward 300 years. Species B conducts secret experiments on Species A with full understanding that it is doing so on sentient beings. Though condemned by other members, the actions here foreshadow those soon to follow.
Species A in the meantime breaks its isolation to interact and aid another species for self-interested reasons. It may even aid Species B during said experiments. It helps defeat a galactic threat alongside a member of Species B for self interested reasons.
Shortly afterwards, powerful members of Species B initiate a war with Species A to recover what it lost in the middle of an apocalyptic event. In the process it kills untold numbers of Species A, possibly in direct defiance of the impartial suggestion of a third party. Dissident members of Species B which had the power to prevent this occurance chose not to.
In the interest of self-defense against a technologically dominant force Species A accepted an offer from the Enemy of All Life. Dissident members of Species A were ignored.
At this point the choice becomes more clear. Though neither side was necessarily in the right earlier on, Species B's actions and motivations are much more clearly aggressive here. Attacking Species A in the middle of a Reaper Invasion was uncalled for. They were not acting out of self defense against an assumed or tangible threat they were attempting to exterminate a species they knew to be sentient in order to provide their non-combatants with a safe haven.
This action would be akin to killing the population of an island because you wanted to build a home there.
Ancillary problems with this decision include jeopardizing a valueable military resource they were fully aware was needed in the larger conflict.
Personally I've always been inclined to side with Species A, the geth (obviously) because of why they fought during the Morning War but this exercise has been beneficial for my understanding of all the mistakes both species have made. I'm still inclined to side with the geth for largely the same reasons but clarity has been achieved.
I want to be clear though I would side with the geth ONLY if I was presented with a situation where I had to choose one or the other. Despite the continued idiocy of the quarian people, I don't believe they deserve to die.
At least not unless their deaths are a direct result of a collectively stupid decision.
If they make a decision as a people to do something that gets them killed, I have no sympathy for them. I love Tali, I love the quarian people, but they have a tendency to make rash decisions and promptly throw themselves off a cliff like lemmings. Its the same way I have no sympathy for people that ram train spikes through their brains intentionally, electrocute themselves to death on purpose, and pretty much any other death that qualifies for a Darwin Award.
Which unfortunately is exactly what they do in Mass Effect 3 if you don't force them to stand down. The whole fleet attacks, making the whole fleet a target against a force I told them is superior. I broker peace every time but I ALWAYS pick the intimidate option to do it.
Retour en haut
