80611 réponses à ce sujet

[masster blaster]

Okay I am going to bed night everyone.


The Iron Throne is mine. Banshee, and Estebanus I win.





This is what IT is happening at the end, when you pick Destroy, and maybe refuse you win, Control, and Synthesis you die.

Modifié par masster blaster, 01 septembre 2012 - 05:50 .

[llbountyhunter]

for those looking for more evidence, or feeling a little doubt.

I also updated it slightly for leviathan. also the first video is a must watch!

http://social.biowar.../index/12547432

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 01 septembre 2012 - 05:50 .

[Hrothdane]

demersel wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I hate how it's always talked about as if the Council was the only thing sacrficied with the Destiny Ascension. There were thousands of people on board. I can't even see sacrificing it with the logic that you need to save your firepower for Sovereign. Because the Ascension is powerful even by dreadnought standards. You're not saving firepower by sacrificing it, you're losing firepower. Basic military strategy: divide and conquer. No reason to divide your assets.

If I had the lifespan of an asari, I'd still never figure out the "women's lives are worth more than men's" philosophy. Equality isn't limited to paychecks.

And I HATE IT, when they talk saving Destiny Ascension as if it was done simply by a click of fingers. 

You  lose A LOT of Allience ships saving Destiny Ascension.  - If you campare war assets - you lose more by saving it, then by letting it be destroyed. Also basic military strategy. 

LOL
And devide and conquer does not apply here,  you're confused. 

Actually, you get slightly more war assets from saving the council because saving the original salarian councilor gives you a fleet.

[BansheeOwnage]

masster blaster wrote...

Okay I am going to bed night everyone.


The Iron Throne is mine. Banshee, and Estebanus I win.

:/

[BansheeOwnage]

Arashi08 wrote...

I know the DLC linked up that possibility, but to me, there just isn't enough evidence FOR the leviathan enthrallment theory. in all three games the clues all seem to point more to the Reapers being involved. After all, indoctrination doesn't necessarily require reaper implants and nanides.

Agreed.

[demersel]

Found in the cerberus daily news:
01/10/2011 - Scientists on Mars Assess New Chamber in Prothean Ruins
“Controversy brews tonight as scientists on Mars assess the contents of a newly opened chamber in the Prothean ruins. The opening has been a dream of exoarchaeologists for decades, delayed by the many steps necessary to replicate Prothean code keys and crack the cryptography for entry. Critics say the Milky Way Foundation, which provided supercomputers for the cryptanalysis, could hoard any Prothean discoveries. Dr. Unira T'Lam, liaison from the Citadel Committee on Paleotechnology, says she's been kept in the dark. "Foundation personnel have orchestrated a security system that keeps out everyone except a select cabal," she accuses. "Anything could be taken from inside and we'd never know." Dr. Ilsa Warren, who heads the analysis unit, dismisses the allegation. "We've made it clear all technology stays in situ throughout the cataloging and analysis process, which could take years," she says. "Dr. T'Lam's fears would be more appropriate closer to the end of the decade."”

[BansheeOwnage]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

Well, after some thought I realized that there is one possible bright spot in the darkness that is Fridge Logic about the leviathans: They are either extremely lazy or have long periods of hibernation like the Thorian. (Given who and what they are, I'd say it's the latter, but still.)

They made an intelligence to solve the problem of their thrall races making AIs and destroying themselves, and the intelligence ended up killing all the Leviathans... And there are so many things in that sentence that don't make sense it's not even funny.

For one, why did it have to be an AI? Couldn't a VI still do all the calculations just as well and then tell the Leviathans about its predictions and what it thought would be the best solution. The Leviathans could go over the plan or make one themselves with the data collected and make sure that it didn't interfere with any of their personal plans. Why did their data collector, calculator, and possible problem solver have to have self-awareness? This seems to indicate the Leviathans were very often out of the picture for whatever reason.

Second, why did they need anything special to stop their servant races from making AIs at all? It would be much easier for them to just fly to homes of younger races and announce that whoever makes AIs will get a personal visit and/or will get their mind crushed. Either do it as the younger races were conquered or show up randomly every couple of hundred years and demonstrate their power. Or just keep a close eye on the younger races and completely obliterate areas that get even slightly disobedient or start building AIs. Hey, even if synthetics weren't a problem, this would still be a good idea. Overall, this seems to indicate that the Leviathans didn't pay close attention to the younger races and weren't in the picture very often.

Third... AI shackles. Seriously. Those two words could have apparently saved the entire galactic empire of the Leviathans. If synthetics are such a big threat to your thrall races, why did it never occur to you to somehow limit the power of this AI? While there is no doubt the Leviathans were/are incredibly arrogant, you'd think that with such long lifespans they'd realize that if something can happen, it probably will. And even if they completely believed that such a thing would never happen to them because they're too powerful/advanced/whatever, would they really bet everything on that? I honestly can't think of an excuse for this one besides stupidity.

The first two can be explained by hibernation for long periods of time, but not the third. So, either the Leviathans are extremely stupid or they're lying through their teeth and are about as trustworthy as Starbrat.

Come on guys, I lose an hour of sleep for this on a school night yesterday and nobody even responds?  What do you guys think?

I not only read it, but responded to it, and saved it in my word doc of words of awesome! Someone beat that!

[demersel]

Hrothdane wrote...

Actually, you get slightly more war assets from saving the council because saving the original salarian councilor gives you a fleet.

Yes, but the salarians have nothing to do with the Destiny Ascention being a VERY POWERFULL SHIP.

And even if you count them - the give you only SLIGHTLY more then if you sacriface the council and don't get the salarians. That tells you how mach of Allience fleet was sacrificed in the process.  

And everybody talks about it as if they are in some life boat or something - they are in a VERY powerfull Asari dreadgnout. They can handle themselves. And they repeatedly tell you that they know better.

Besides, as i recall, the new salarian councilor (not Dalatress) - is very greatfull for me giving him the job, and gives me the fleet anyway. (or some part of it) 

Modifié par demersel, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:01 .

[BansheeOwnage]

demersel wrote...

I don't do the action, based on what is paragon and what is renegade - i do it based on what i think is the right thing to do. 

Quote because I think everyone should do this. There I said it. Now yell at me.

[Hrothdane]

demersel wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

Actually, you get slightly more war assets from saving the council because saving the original salarian councilor gives you a fleet.

Yes, but the salarians have nothing to do with the Destiny Ascention being a VERY POWERFULL SHIP.

And even if you count them - the give you only SLIGHTLY more then if you sacriface the council and don't get the salarians. That tells you how mach of Allience fleet was sacrificed in the process.  

I know this is not reflected in gameplay, but at the time I chose to save the Destiny Ascension, I kept thinking back to Star Wars and Darth Vader's flagship, the Executor.

If you read the books and lore, losing the Executor was almost as bad a crippling blow to the Empire as losing the Emperor and the Death Star II. Almost every single one of the best officers in the entire Imperial Navy was aboard the Executor when it went down. Since the Council was ALSO aboard the Destiny Ascension, losing the ship would be akin to losing the Executor with Darth Vader and the Emperor on board. 

In my Shepard's thinking, keeping the Council alive helps maintain a degree of galactic stability, create goodwill amongst the other races of the galaxy, and HOPEFULLY make the Council more likely to listen to her in the future because the person most likely to listen to you in the future is the person that didn't listen to you in the past and got punished for it.

Of course, the game doesn't reflect any of those benefits, but Shepard has no way of knowing that when she makes the decision.

[Hrothdane]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

demersel wrote...

I don't do the action, based on what is paragon and what is renegade - i do it based on what i think is the right thing to do. 

Quote because I think everyone should do this. There I said it. Now yell at me.

I've been uber lawful good my entire life, so 99% of the time paragon looks like the right choice to me.

[Big_Boss9]

Ok, who wants to play some MP? Origin ID -- ResJudicata77

[Hrothdane]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Ok, who wants to play some MP? Origin ID -- ResJudicata77

I'll play. I'm already on your list.

[BansheeOwnage]

Hrothdane wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

demersel wrote...

I don't do the action, based on what is paragon and what is renegade - i do it based on what i think is the right thing to do. 

Quote because I think everyone should do this. There I said it. Now yell at me.

I've been uber lawful good my entire life, so 99% of the time paragon looks like the right choice to me.

Yeah. Me too. Ever tried using the decision whell in real life? It works wonders! Seriously! Very amusing too.

Edit: Also, keep in mind that in ME, a lot of decisions or dialogue are not paragon or renegade, they're top and bottom. Simple as that. Geth or quarians? Neither is paragon or renegade. I'm sure you know that anyway, but I thought I'd say it.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:15 .

[demersel]

Hrothdane wrote...

I know this is not reflected in gameplay, but at the time I chose to save the Destiny Ascension, I kept thinking back to Star Wars and Darth Vader's flagship, the Executor.

If you read the books and lore, losing the Executor was almost as bad a crippling blow to the Empire as losing the Emperor and the Death Star II. Almost every single one of the best officers in the entire Imperial Navy was aboard the Executor when it went down. Since the Council was ALSO aboard the Destiny Ascension, losing the ship would be akin to losing the Executor with Darth Vader and the Emperor on board. 

In my Shepard's thinking, keeping the Council alive helps maintain a degree of galactic stability, create goodwill amongst the other races of the galaxy, and HOPEFULLY make the Council more likely to listen to her in the future because the person most likely to listen to you in the future is the person that didn't listen to you in the past and got punished for it.

Of course, the game doesn't reflect any of those benefits, but Shepard has no way of knowing that when she makes the decision.

My Shepard didn't read any of the Extended  Universe. And the lesson he got out of that scene of the Return of the Jedi was this - having the biggest ship, does not garantee you victory. Same with the death star, which was present at the scene by the way, among with the empire's WHOLE FLEET, and the rebels still kicked their asses - you know why? Because they MEANT IT - that is what my Shepard got out of watching Return of the Jedi. And it is part of what drives him against the reapers.

Modifié par demersel, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:18 .

[Arashi08]

Hrothdane wrote...

demersel wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I hate how it's always talked about as if the Council was the only thing sacrficied with the Destiny Ascension. There were thousands of people on board. I can't even see sacrificing it with the logic that you need to save your firepower for Sovereign. Because the Ascension is powerful even by dreadnought standards. You're not saving firepower by sacrificing it, you're losing firepower. Basic military strategy: divide and conquer. No reason to divide your assets.

If I had the lifespan of an asari, I'd still never figure out the "women's lives are worth more than men's" philosophy. Equality isn't limited to paychecks.

And I HATE IT, when they talk saving Destiny Ascension as if it was done simply by a click of fingers. 

You  lose A LOT of Allience ships saving Destiny Ascension.  - If you campare war assets - you lose more by saving it, then by letting it be destroyed. Also basic military strategy. 

LOL
And devide and conquer does not apply here,  you're confused. 

Actually, you get slightly more war assets from saving the council because saving the original salarian councilor gives you a fleet.

I'm not Rifneno's biggest fan or anything, but I agree with him on this.  Also it isn't just about how many people are lost during the battle of the Citadel, it is also about how humanity will be judged by the rest of the galactic community.  in ME1 humanity has a bit of an infamous reputation from the start, so choosing to sacrifice the Council tells the rest of the galaxy that humans will always put their needs before others, and then, to the other races, the goals of humanity and the goals of Cerberus seem to align.  The suspicion and resentment humanity recieves if you sacrifice the Council is notable in ME2, especially with the Turian gun merchant and a bit with Joram Talid as well.  and of course, depending on your choices, it makes saving your VS harder, or  easer to shoot depending on how you see it.

My Shepard learned after learning about the Reapers that humanity can't win against them alone and that humans can't think of themselves as the only sentient race in the galaxy anymore.  It becomes bigger than humanity, and I think whichever attitude your Shepard has is reflected in the war assets.  (not all that well, but there is a difference, since you get more points for saving the council overall.)

I really need to recycle this soapbox...


EDIT: I should probably mention that this is just my opinion...can't be too careful on the internet lol

Modifié par Arashi08, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:19 .

[demersel]

Arashi08 wrote...

I'm not Rifneno's biggest fan or anything, but I agree with him on this.  Also it isn't just about how many people are lost during the battle of the Citadel, it is also about how humanity will be judged by the rest of the galactic community.  in ME1 humanity has a bit of an infamous reputation from the start, so choosing to sacrifice the Council tells the rest of the galaxy that humans will always put their needs before others, and then, to the other races, the goals of humanity and the goals of Cerberus seem to align.  The suspicion and resentment humanity recieves if you sacrifice the Council is notable in ME2, especially with the Turian gun merchant and a bit with Joram Talid as well.  and of course, depending on your choices, it makes saving your VS harder, or  easer to shoot depending on how you see it.

My Shepard learned after learning about the Reapers that humanity can't win against them alone and that humans can't think of themselves as the only sentient race in the galaxy anymore.  It becomes bigger than humanity, and I think whichever attitude your Shepard has is reflected in the war assets.  (not all that well, but there is a difference, since you get more points for saving the council overall.)

I really need to recycle this soapbox...

Turian gun merchant treats like a King when he finds out that you are Shepard -  the man who gave the order to attack sovereign while leaving the Destiny Ascention to devert attention of the geth fleet. He admires your tactical brilliance. 

And the whole tone of the galaxy - they don't like you, a lot, but they fear you, and respect you, achknowledging that it was a brilliant move, and that they would certainly do the same (as in put their own people's well-being) - later it allows them to relate to humanity easier, cause they understand what those motives. 

And treat you like equal. 
Not with condescented amusement, like they do if they save the council. Deep down they consider you stupid and gullable - and don't respect you. no one likes a brownnoser. 

And that is just my reasoning behind all this. I just thought i'd share it. I'm not telling you that you should think like that, or you're wrong for not thinking like that. 
Mass Effect is great, because it becomes personal and your own. 

Modifié par demersel, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:33 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Arashi08 wrote...

EDIT: I should probably mention that this is just my opinion...can't be too careful on the internet lol

You know, I assumed it was your opinion, because you were the one saying it. Huh. [/smart person]

Also, Rif grows on you. I can tell you I wasn't his biggest fan at first either. But after you've had enough of stuff, like I'm sure he has, you tend to agree with him on a lot of things, and most of the time, he says what I was thinking. He also reminds me of House, which is a bonus. Anyway, I'm going to bed now. Goodnight everyone.  

[demersel]

Arashi08 wrote...
I think whichever attitude your Shepard has is reflected in the war assets.  (not all that well, but there is a difference, since you get more points for saving the council overall.)

I have 6993 total military strengh points before cronos station and without leviathan assets, and i feel that that is good enough, for me being able to do what I feel is right. 

[Arashi08]

demersel wrote...

Arashi08 wrote...

I'm not Rifneno's biggest fan or anything, but I agree with him on this.  Also it isn't just about how many people are lost during the battle of the Citadel, it is also about how humanity will be judged by the rest of the galactic community.  in ME1 humanity has a bit of an infamous reputation from the start, so choosing to sacrifice the Council tells the rest of the galaxy that humans will always put their needs before others, and then, to the other races, the goals of humanity and the goals of Cerberus seem to align.  The suspicion and resentment humanity recieves if you sacrifice the Council is notable in ME2, especially with the Turian gun merchant and a bit with Joram Talid as well.  and of course, depending on your choices, it makes saving your VS harder, or  easer to shoot depending on how you see it.

My Shepard learned after learning about the Reapers that humanity can't win against them alone and that humans can't think of themselves as the only sentient race in the galaxy anymore.  It becomes bigger than humanity, and I think whichever attitude your Shepard has is reflected in the war assets.  (not all that well, but there is a difference, since you get more points for saving the council overall.)

I really need to recycle this soapbox...

Turian gun merchant treat's like a king when he finds out that you a Shepard -  the man who gave the order to attack sovereign while leaving the Destiny Ascention to devert attention of the geth fleet. 

And the whole tone of the galaxy - they don't like you, a lot, but they fear you, and respect you, achknowledging that it was a brilliant move, and that they would certainly do the same (as in put their own people's well-being) - later it allows them to relate to humanity easier, cause they understand what those motives. 

And treat you like equal. 
Not with condescented amusement, like they do if they save the council. Deep down they consider you stupid and gullable - and don't respect you. no one likes a brownnoser. 

And that is just my reasoning behind all this. I just thought i'd share it. I'm not telling you that you should think like that, or you're wrong for not thinking like that. 
Mass Effect is great, because it becomes personal and your own. 

Well that was certainly Machiavellian of you lol.

I'm not saying this about you, but about the philosophy of Machiavelli himself.  Your philospohy, while similar in my opinion, is not necessarily the same as his.

Personally, I found Machiavelli to be a bit ignorant and narrow-minded; he believed that humans were inherently evil and would act on their dark instincts if given the chance.  From my experience, people naturally seek harmony, and when they don't know how to find it, or something clouds that vision for them, then they look for something to fill the void they lost.  most irrational negative behavior stems from a material want, which is a substitiute for a need which was lost.  it is like if something intricately intimate to their very being was taken from them and it leaves an addiction with which people need to fill with "things"  whatever those things may be.

But I'm getting off track, but your post reminded me of what little I had read about Machiavelli (he was also mentioned in ME1)  I don't know how you got the gun merchant to treat you like as king, unless that means he gave you a discount for fighting the enemy of his enemy, which he did for me when I did a playthrough that sacrificed the council, but he still treated me like he didn't want me around, and the other races seem to support what Talid advocates when you talk to Bailey about it.  Nor did I see the condescention you were talking about.  People seemed to geniunely respect me alot more for my decision and humanity is much more widely respected in general as a result.  So naturally, I have a hard time seeing the condescention and "brownnosing."  you are seeing.

Machiavelli felt that being feared was better than being loved.  I disagree.  Loyalty is alot less breakable than fear imo.  When your subjects fear you, all it will take is something they fear more to persuade them to the other side, or to simply flee entirely, succumbing to their instincts.  Loyalty is far yess unyielding, as it gives people something that inspires them and something to rally behind.  People even go beyond their basic human instincts when loyalty and faith are involved. 

Reaper indoctrination is an excellent example of how this method works, albeit in a more sinister light.  The Reapers don't rule through fear, they may use fear initially, but what causes a person to be indoctrinated is that the Reapers create loyalty.  it's alot like how organized religions do it.  So yes, this casts inspiration in as much a negative light as a positive one, but the result still seems more applicable that fear to me.

Sorry this got all long winded, I'm not trying to persuade you to my side or anything.  But you gave your opinion and I thought it only fair that I give mine.  I respect your choices; your life was shaped differently than mine so you have your own reasons, just as I have mine, and your experiences shaped your view and decisions.  I personally couldn't disagree with you more, but that doesn't automatically make me right either.  We all have our reasons for our choices.

[Arashi08]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Arashi08 wrote...

EDIT: I should probably mention that this is just my opinion...can't be too careful on the internet lol

You know, I assumed it was your opinion, because you were the one saying it. Huh. [/smart person]

Also, Rif grows on you. I can tell you I wasn't his biggest fan at first either. But after you've had enough of stuff, like I'm sure he has, you tend to agree with him on a lot of things, and most of the time, he says what I was thinking. He also reminds me of House, which is a bonus. Anyway, I'm going to bed now. Goodnight everyone.  

I feel it necessary to carefully word my statements so I don't come off as arrogant or that I simply know something other people don't.  Most of the time it is just my opinion and I feel obligated to make sure people who read my posts understand that lest they get offended by my posts thinking I'm being arrogant.

[Rifneno]

demersel wrote...

And I HATE IT, when they talk saving Destiny Ascension as if it was done simply by a click of fingers.

You lose A LOT of Allience ships saving Destiny Ascension. - If you campare war assets - you lose more by saving it, then by letting it be destroyed. Also basic military strategy.

LOL
And devide and conquer does not apply here, you're confused.

Khalisah Al-Jilani: If true, you told Admiral Hackett to assist the Destiny Ascension, costing hundreds of human lives and securing the continued dominance of the Citadel Council.
Shepard: The Turians lost 20 cruisers. Figure each had a crew around 300. The Ascension - the asari dreadnought we saved - had a crew of nearly 10,000.
Khalisah Al-Jilani: But surely the human cost--
Shepard: The Alliance lost eight cruisers. Shenyang. Emden. Jakarta. Cairo. Cape Town. Warsaw. Madrid. And yes, I remember them all. Everyone in the 5th Fleet is a hero. The Alliance owes them all medals. The Council owes them a lot more than that. And so do you.

We don't know how many the turians had there, but you can be damned sure they'd have lost them all trying to save the Ascension. You can save the Ascension and likely quite a few other alien ships by sacrificing 8 Alliance cruisers. Now we don't know how much firepower a cruiser packs, but we know a dreadnought's main gun hits as hard as a small fission bomb. There's treaties about how many dreadnoughts you can have, none about cruisers. It's only an educated guess, but I'd say the Ascension alone packs more firepower than those cruisers. I'm not putting too much stock in what war assets' ratings are. I can promote one vorcha and it'll give me more EMS than any dreadnought in the galaxy.

[Arashi08]

Rifneno wrote...

demersel wrote...

And I HATE IT, when they talk saving Destiny Ascension as if it was done simply by a click of fingers.

You lose A LOT of Allience ships saving Destiny Ascension. - If you campare war assets - you lose more by saving it, then by letting it be destroyed. Also basic military strategy.

LOL
And devide and conquer does not apply here, you're confused.

Khalisah Al-Jilani: If true, you told Admiral Hackett to assist the Destiny Ascension, costing hundreds of human lives and securing the continued dominance of the Citadel Council.
Shepard: The Turians lost 20 cruisers. Figure each had a crew around 300. The Ascension - the asari dreadnought we saved - had a crew of nearly 10,000.
Khalisah Al-Jilani: But surely the human cost--
Shepard: The Alliance lost eight cruisers. Shenyang. Emden. Jakarta. Cairo. Cape Town. Warsaw. Madrid. And yes, I remember them all. Everyone in the 5th Fleet is a hero. The Alliance owes them all medals. The Council owes them a lot more than that. And so do you.

We don't know how many the turians had there, but you can be damned sure they'd have lost them all trying to save the Ascension. You can save the Ascension and likely quite a few other alien ships by sacrificing 8 Alliance cruisers. Now we don't know how much firepower a cruiser packs, but we know a dreadnought's main gun hits as hard as a small fission bomb. There's treaties about how many dreadnoughts you can have, none about cruisers. It's only an educated guess, but I'd say the Ascension alone packs more firepower than those cruisers. I'm not putting too much stock in what war assets' ratings are. I can promote one vorcha and it'll give me more EMS than any dreadnought in the galaxy.

That's only seven, you forgot Seoul lol

[demersel]

Rifneno wrote...

Khalisah Al-Jilani: If true, you told Admiral Hackett to assist the Destiny Ascension, costing hundreds of human lives and securing the continued dominance of the Citadel Council.
Shepard: The Turians lost 20 cruisers. Figure each had a crew around 300. The Ascension - the asari dreadnought we saved - had a crew of nearly 10,000.
Khalisah Al-Jilani: But surely the human cost--
Shepard: The Alliance lost eight cruisers. Shenyang. Emden. Jakarta. Cairo. Cape Town. Warsaw. Madrid. And yes, I remember them all. Everyone in the 5th Fleet is a hero. The Alliance owes them all medals. The Council owes them a lot more than that. And so do you.

We don't know how many the turians had there, but you can be damned sure they'd have lost them all trying to save the Ascension. You can save the Ascension and likely quite a few other alien ships by sacrificing 8 Alliance cruisers. Now we don't know how much firepower a cruiser packs, but we know a dreadnought's main gun hits as hard as a small fission bomb. There's treaties about how many dreadnoughts you can have, none about cruisers. It's only an educated guess, but I'd say the Ascension alone packs more firepower than those cruisers. I'm not putting too much stock in what war assets' ratings are. I can promote one vorcha and it'll give me more EMS than any dreadnought in the galaxy.

True. 
You all  really forget my main point and motivation behind my decision - I didn't know what it was gonna do at the time. And neither did you. As far as I knew - by chosing to delay the attack on sovereign, to assist Destiny Ascention, i kight have given Soverign just enough time to open the citadel portal, and let countless reapers in, which would result id destruction of all the fleets that were there, and the consequently the death of all galactic civilizations. I did not know at the time that this particular choice doesn't have an effect on the out come oh this particular game. 

[Hrothdane]

Arashi08 wrote...




Well that was certainly Machiavellian of you lol.

I'm not saying this about you, but about the philosophy of Machiavelli himself.  Your philospohy, while similar in my opinion, is not necessarily the same as his.

Personally, I found Machiavelli to be a bit ignorant and narrow-minded; he believed that humans were inherently evil and would act on their dark instincts if given the chance.  From my experience, people naturally seek harmony, and when they don't know how to find it, or something clouds that vision for them, then they look for something to fill the void they lost.  most irrational negative behavior stems from a material want, which is a substitiute for a need which was lost.  it is like if something intricately intimate to their very being was taken from them and it leaves an addiction with which people need to fill with "things"  whatever those things may be.

But I'm getting off track, but your post reminded me of what little I had read about Machiavelli (he was also mentioned in ME1)  I don't know how you got the gun merchant to treat you like as king, unless that means he gave you a discount for fighting the enemy of his enemy, which he did for me when I did a playthrough that sacrificed the council, but he still treated me like he didn't want me around, and the other races seem to support what Talid advocates when you talk to Bailey about it.  Nor did I see the condescention you were talking about.  People seemed to geniunely respect me alot more for my decision and humanity is much more widely respected in general as a result.  So naturally, I have a hard time seeing the condescention and "brownnosing."  you are seeing.

Machiavelli felt that being feared was better than being loved.  I disagree.  Loyalty is alot less breakable than fear imo.  When your subjects fear you, all it will take is something they fear more to persuade them to the other side, or to simply flee entirely, succumbing to their instincts.  Loyalty is far yess unyielding, as it gives people something that inspires them and something to rally behind.  People even go beyond their basic human instincts when loyalty and faith are involved. 

Reaper indoctrination is an excellent example of how this method works, albeit in a more sinister light.  The Reapers don't rule through fear, they may use fear initially, but what causes a person to be indoctrinated is that the Reapers create loyalty.  it's alot like how organized religions do it.  So yes, this casts inspiration in as much a negative light as a positive one, but the result still seems more applicable that fear to me.

Sorry this got all long winded, I'm not trying to persuade you to my side or anything.  But you gave your opinion and I thought it only fair that I give mine.  I respect your choices; your life was shaped differently than mine so you have your own reasons, just as I have mine, and your experiences shaped your view and decisions.  I personally couldn't disagree with you more, but that doesn't automatically make me right either.  We all have our reasons for our choices.

I just wanted to add that now that historians have access to more of Machiavelli's writings and information about him personally, they believe that The Prince was a satire.

He was actually a passionate proponent of republics and democracies.