925 réponses à ce sujet

[Geneaux486]

Pitznik wrote...

flanny wrote...

Also while I'd still refuse even if it was impossible, conventional is possible 

I value Hackett's opinion over yours, no offence.

Yeah, the games make it pretty clear that a conventional win against thousands of massive, incomprehensible monsters is pretty unlikely, and pretty much impossible seeing as how nobody prepared worth a damn for it.

[robertthebard]

flanny wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

flanny wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

flanny wrote...

 I always think of Rorschach from the Watchmen, he is similar to my Shep he's a full renegade who doesn't take authority well, but is uncompromising with his morals. It is better to die and fail than to live and succeed if it means compromising yourself. That is why Rorschach proved to be the greatest hero of all of them.

'it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees'

I also think it come down to the fact without metagaming trusting the catalyst is foolish. It also depends on what you think your chances are of defeating the reapers without the crucible (no it is not impossible)

Also, the greatest villain.

At least when Ozymandias committed his mass murder it was with the intent of 'saving the world'; when Rorschach blows him off it's not for any perceived greater good, it's just an unwillingness to bend to meet the circumstances.

you are missing the point, he compromises everything he is for the supposed 'greater good' this is what makes him a villain. 
Rorschach knows he can't win but would rather die then compromise who he is, this is the sign of being a true hero.

Same with Shep except Shep actually does have a cahnce to win, he is just betrayed by ME3s writers quest for spite.

No, it's the sign of a zealot. A hero is someone that swallows his pride and does what is necessary to achieve the greater good.

In Mass Effect 3 that equates to choosing one of three options, refusal can only lead to the total extinction of all advanced organic life. In Watchmen it means putting the world back on the course to nuclear war and thwarting the likely period of international cooperation.

so a hero comprosises with the reaper overlord?... the person responsible for killing how many people, including Shepard... But standing up to this evil is wrong? Following the choices mean you become part of the reaper overlords retarded plan, you betray everything Shepard stood for. Also without twitter we dont know it leads to extinction, just becuase bioware wanted to spite fans with refuse ending doesn't mean the idea is bad. 

You're clearly a very twisted person...

Also while I'd still refuse even if it was impossible, conventional is possible 

So you believe that allowing trillions to die is better than sticking to your principles and doing what you set out to do?  You set out to stop the Reapers, not let them win.  By this point in the game, we are directly responsible for people laying down their lives to help us achieve our goals.  So all of these sacrifices were in vain, because you believe the correct thing to do is lay down?  Refuse isn't dying on your feet, it's dying on your knees.  It's also a big middle finger to everybody along the way, all the way back to Virmire, who's laid down their lives to stop the Reapers.

[AlanC9]

SkullStrife wrote...
it´s difficult to put it in examples but imagine that during the WW2 while the ****s had occupied most of Europe, they also occupied England and were about to win the war... (USSR is being pushed backs and americans didin´t make it in time) BUT before that, a KGB and a CIA agent (called Shepard and Garrus xD) infiltrate the Reich and inside the main bunker they encounter an alien computer responsible for starting the war, that computer is the one that controls Germany... (yes, a Deus Ex machina xD) it states that humanity needs to be united under the Reich to avoid future wars, and offers the russians and americans three choices:

Why not just make it a German and Japanese agent infiltrating Washington in 1945? Then you don't have to do the counterfactual about the Axis winning.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 août 2012 - 09:54 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

flanny wrote...
 Following the choices mean you become part of the reaper overlords retarded plan, you betray everything Shepard stood for.

Again:

Just because I choose one of the Catalyst's options doesn't mean I agree with it.

[SkullStrife]

AlanC9 wrote...

SkullStrife wrote...
it´s difficult to put it in examples but imagine that during the WW2 while the ****s had occupied most of Europe, they also occupied England and were about to win the war... (USSR is being pushed backs and americans didin´t make it in time) BUT before that, a KGB and a CIA agent (called Shepard and Garrus xD) infiltrate the Reich and inside the main bunker they encounter an alien computer responsible for starting the war, that computer is the one that controls Germany... (yes, a Deus Ex machina xD) it states that humanity needs to be united under the Reich to avoid future wars, and offers the russians and americans three choices:

Why not just make it a German and Japanese agent infiltrating Washington in 1945? Then you don't have to do the counterfactual about the Axis winning.

whatever is easier for you to understand as an example xD (also the "computer aka catalyst" started the war so they should be in the german side in order to fit the example xD)

[Vermigs]

Isichar wrote...

Trillions of deaths from the reapers, lives destroyed in the most horrible way possible. By using the crucible you are justifying what the reapers have done to countless organic cycles.

By using the crucible you are justifying that all trillions of deaths were worth it just to save your one cycle. It is selfish and ignores those who died to actually stop the reapers, not submit to them.


Synthesis is the ultimate renegade option, you are saying the ends justify the means.

I just wanted to see what happened. Also, the satisfaction of shooting the little brat.

[eye basher]

Omni-Science2 wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Cobalt2113 wrote...

Better to just let the horrible deaths continue then?

Yes. Reapers will fail no matter what you do, At least then the sacrfices actually meant something and all those people who died fighting the reapers did not do so just for someone to ultimately say "hey catalyst you were right to do what you did"

Yes I would much rather die fighting for what I believed in then justify the murdering of trillions of lives, just so I can live.

This right there. People will find their own justifications for choosing Refusal or Destroy though. 

Refusal has the most moral integrity, Imho. And you succeed in the end, but only in the sense that the Protheans and those that came before them succeeded.

You just die refuse is a turkey shoot and whats more you die when the reapers kill you and then you die again when the next cycle kills the reapers because you got turned into one so you didn't die once but twice.

[Dharvy]

flanny wrote...
so a hero comprosises with the reaper overlord?... the person responsible for killing how many people, including Shepard... But standing up to this evil is wrong? Following the choices mean you become part of the reaper overlords retarded plan, you betray everything Shepard stood for. Also without twitter we dont know it leads to extinction, just becuase bioware wanted to spite fans with refuse ending doesn't mean the idea is bad. 

You're clearly a very twisted person...

Also while I'd still refuse even if it was impossible, conventional is possible 

Sometimes you have to compromise its just mean how much of a compromise you're willing to make.

And to me the Catalyst offer the choices in defeated manner, (well as much as a AI can seem defeated.) You have overcame him, render his solutions invalid, his ways obsolete, now its up to you to choose how you're going to continue your cycle, this war: Destroy them, Control them, Synthesis everyone and rendering Destroy and Control unneccessary. Refuse seems that you're unaware of the situation, the extent of or the reality of the war going about you. You're unaware of the manner in which you're giving options and the option refusing would result in. Refusing is not standing up to the catalyst or the Reapers, they are defeated and are offering you their terms of surrender. You can outright destroy them, control and utilize them to fix all that they destroyed (at least this cycle), synthesis is probably along the lines of some kind of pardon and releasing the reapers from being a sort of slave to their programing and putting up some kind of insurance that the reason for the programing have a less likely occurance.

[Boneyaards]

You do realize that you can destroy them right? 

I'm no mathmetician but choosing Destroy simply damages the Geth and EDI. Choosing to refuse means that all organics from every planet within the Galaxy is slaughtered and harvested along with the Geth and EDI.

[RiouHotaru]

If you pick Refuse, you, and only you, condemn the galaxy to get Reaped.

Arguing that it's somehow not Shepard's fault is non-sensical.

[SP2219]

Omanisat wrote...

So it's better the trillions of deaths are on shep's hands, instead of the Reapers?

You are completely missing the point.  The Reapers are to blame for the entire situation in question.  Shepard is not the one killing innocent people, the Reapers are.  The Reapers are the ones slaughtering trillions in the refusal ending.  All Shepard does is say no.  Saying no to a murderer does not equate to carrying out the act itself.  That's complete nonsense.

Quite the contrary, saying no to a murderer completely disassociates you from the crime the murderer commits.  It's not your fault the murderer is evil or insane.  That is outwith Shepard's control.

You are basically saying that, when we say no to a mass murderer, we are just as bad as him or her.  That's ridiculous. 

[SP2219]

RiouHotaru wrote...

If you pick Refuse, you, and only you, condemn the galaxy to get Reaped.

Arguing that it's somehow not Shepard's fault is non-sensical.

No it is not.  The Reapers are the ones committing the reaping.  They are sentient.  They are the ones making the choice to commit genocide, not Shepard.  Shepard cannot be held accountable for crimes committed by the Reapers, because Shepard is not a Reaper.  What part of that can you not understand?

[SP2219]

Boneyaards wrote...

You do realize that you can destroy them right? 

I'm no mathmetician but choosing Destroy simply damages the Geth and EDI. Choosing to refuse means that all organics from every planet within the Galaxy is slaughtered and harvested along with the Geth and EDI.

You don't need to be a mathematician to distinguish the difference between choosing not to commit a crime, and choosing to actually engage in it.  

[robertthebard]

SP2219 wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

So it's better the trillions of deaths are on shep's hands, instead of the Reapers?

You are completely missing the point.  The Reapers are to blame for the entire situation in question.  Shepard is not the one killing innocent people, the Reapers are.  The Reapers are the ones slaughtering trillions in the refusal ending.  All Shepard does is say no.  Saying no to a murderer does not equate to carrying out the act itself.  That's complete nonsense.

Quite the contrary, saying no to a murderer completely disassociates you from the crime the murderer commits.  It's not your fault the murderer is evil or insane.  That is outwith Shepard's control.

You are basically saying that, when we say no to a mass murderer, we are just as bad as him or her.  That's ridiculous. 

Saying no to stopping a murderer makes you an accessory to the murder, when it is within your power to stop them.  Since, at this point, it is within your power to do so, and you Refuse to do it, you are an accessory to the crime.  Where I live, accessory to is the same as, so an accessory to a murder is a murderer.  You set out to stop the Reapers, you are acting with the full faith and trust of the tech advanced members of galactic society, and you choose to let everyone die, because you don't want to act.  That's negligent homicide.  However, given the scale, it's actually genocide, multiple counts.  Of course, since there will be no one alive to try you, I guess you can accept your death sentence along with everyone else.

[Dharvy]

robertthebard wrote...

SP2219 wrote...

Omanisat wrote...

So it's better the trillions of deaths are on shep's hands, instead of the Reapers?

You are completely missing the point.  The Reapers are to blame for the entire situation in question.  Shepard is not the one killing innocent people, the Reapers are.  The Reapers are the ones slaughtering trillions in the refusal ending.  All Shepard does is say no.  Saying no to a murderer does not equate to carrying out the act itself.  That's complete nonsense.

Quite the contrary, saying no to a murderer completely disassociates you from the crime the murderer commits.  It's not your fault the murderer is evil or insane.  That is outwith Shepard's control.

You are basically saying that, when we say no to a mass murderer, we are just as bad as him or her.  That's ridiculous. 

Saying no to stopping a murderer makes you an accessory to the murder, when it is within your power to stop them.  Since, at this point, it is within your power to do so, and you Refuse to do it, you are an accessory to the crime.  Where I live, accessory to is the same as, so an accessory to a murder is a murderer.  You set out to stop the Reapers, you are acting with the full faith and trust of the tech advanced members of galactic society, and you choose to let everyone die, because you don't want to act.  That's negligent homicide.  However, given the scale, it's actually genocide, multiple counts.  Of course, since there will be no one alive to try you, I guess you can accept your death sentence along with everyone else.

Robbert has a point. You're not just saying No to a mass murderer. You're saying No to STOPPING said mass murderer.

What would someone say to a leader of a country that have a train with a bomb on board that is set to go off when it gets into a certain city but he refused to act because he didn't like the option of blowing the train and killing the passengers on the train before it got into the city and ended up killing countless more lives when it reached the city even the ones on the train anyway?

[Goneaviking]

SP2219 wrote...

Boneyaards wrote...

You do realize that you can destroy them right? 

I'm no mathmetician but choosing Destroy simply damages the Geth and EDI. Choosing to refuse means that all organics from every planet within the Galaxy is slaughtered and harvested along with the Geth and EDI.

You don't need to be a mathematician to distinguish the difference between choosing not to commit a crime, and choosing to actually engage in it.  

You do have to be a pretty darned good philsopher, however, to make a convincing case that someone (in this case Shepard) who has the ability to stop a crime (in this case Genocide) but chooses not to do so is in no way responsible for the crime he allowed to happen.

Modifié par Goneaviking, 15 août 2012 - 01:09 .

[Goneaviking]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

flanny wrote...

Also while I'd still refuse even if it was impossible, conventional is possible 

I value Hackett's opinion over yours, no offence.

Yeah, the games make it pretty clear that a conventional win against thousands of massive, incomprehensible monsters is pretty unlikely, and pretty much impossible seeing as how nobody prepared worth a damn for it.

The game also makes it very clear that the bulk of our military forces are engaged in battle with the Reapers on, and over, Earth. And the largest military fleet the galaxy has seen in at least 50,000 years is losing decisively in the battle.
This attack was one desperate shot with all of the resources that could be mustered.

Even if people want to believe that conventional victory was possible at the start of the game, that window has closed before you make your suicide rush through Harbinger's beam in London.

[3DandBeyond]

Goneaviking wrote...

SP2219 wrote...

Boneyaards wrote...

You do realize that you can destroy them right? 

I'm no mathmetician but choosing Destroy simply damages the Geth and EDI. Choosing to refuse means that all organics from every planet within the Galaxy is slaughtered and harvested along with the Geth and EDI.

You don't need to be a mathematician to distinguish the difference between choosing not to commit a crime, and choosing to actually engage in it.  

You do have to be a pretty darned good philsopher, however, to make a convincing case that someone (in this case Shepard) who has the ability to stop a crime (in this case Genocide) but chooses not to do so is in no way responsible for the crime he allowed to happen.

Deciding to try and fight, no matter how futile is not a "crime".  Choosing to deliberately kill billions of people that are actually trying to help you cannot be mitigated by the knowlege of what "might" happen no matter how certain you are it will.  Choosing to actively do a wrong by trying to stop another wrong from happening is not a valid reason for doing it.  Yes, everyone very well will die, but that is not 100% certain no matter what you are told-some may survive somewhere somehow.  Or maybe the kid's programming will spontaneously come apart at the seams.  It is certain you will kill billions of geth.  It is very probable the galaxy will be destroyed.  But refuse is still a maybe while destroy is a certainty.

Still and all Shepard does not know that refusal will shut down the crucible.  How would Shepard know that?  I want to ask how many people decided not to refuse or didn't shoot the kid because they thought it would kill everyone-the first time they did it?  Be honest and think to yourself if you really thought it would do what it did or if you were surprised by it.  All the videos I saw of it showed people very surpised.  You can only answer this if you didn't hear about what it did before you played the ending.

If you figured out that shooting the kid or refusing his choices would instantly kill everyone without knowing about it that's one thing.  I think you're psychic.  But if it surprised you when you first shot the kid or refused the choices, then refuse is a valid choice for Shepard to make.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 15 août 2012 - 01:41 .

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Goneaviking wrote...

SP2219 wrote...

Boneyaards wrote...

You do realize that you can destroy them right? 

I'm no mathmetician but choosing Destroy simply damages the Geth and EDI. Choosing to refuse means that all organics from every planet within the Galaxy is slaughtered and harvested along with the Geth and EDI.

You don't need to be a mathematician to distinguish the difference between choosing not to commit a crime, and choosing to actually engage in it.  

You do have to be a pretty darned good philsopher, however, to make a convincing case that someone (in this case Shepard) who has the ability to stop a crime (in this case Genocide) but chooses not to do so is in no way responsible for the crime he allowed to happen.

Deciding to try and fight, no matter how futile is not a "crime".  Choosing to deliberately kill billions of people that are actually trying to help you cannot be mitigated by the knowlege of what "might" happen no matter how certain you are it will.  Choosing to actively do a wrong by trying to stop another wrong from happening is not a valid reason for doing it.  Yes, everyone very well will die, but that is not 100% certain no matter what you are told-some may survive somewhere somehow.  Or maybe the kid's programming will spontaneously come apart at the seams.  It is certain you will kill billions of geth.  It is very probable the galaxy will be destroyed.  But refuse is still a maybe while destroy is a certainty.

Still and all Shepard does not know that refusal will shut down the crucible.  How would Shepard know that?  I want to ask how many people decided not to refuse or didn't shoot the kid because they thought it would kill everyone-the first time they did it?  Be honest and think to yourself if you really thought it would do what it did or if you were surprised by it.  All the videos I saw of it showed people very surpised.  You can only answer this if you didn't hear about what it did before you played the ending.

If you figured out that shooting the kid or refusing his choices would instantly kill everyone without knowing about it that's one thing.  I think you're psychic.  But if it surprised you when you first shot the kid or refused the choices, then refuse is a valid choice for Shepard to make.

All I had to do was look at Palaven, and listen to what Garrus had to say even after the Krogan were dropped into the mix, and then look at Thessia, and how fast the situation deteriorated.  I had the EC from the start, since I didn't get ME 3 until after it was released, and it came with my Digital Deluxe version.  I knew there was an ending controversy, certainly, but not exactly what it was, since I wasn't really interested in Mass Effect at all until May or so of this year.  You can't be a gamer w/out hearing that there is one, although you don't need to read all the details.

8 million Turians dead in two days, after they lost another colony completely.  The wreckage of Vancouver in just a few mintues to an hour of in game time.  Take a look at the galaxy map when you get ready to jump to London, there isn't a lot left that isn't under siege already.  In fact, every relay shows as being Reaper controlled.  Even if I had thought, for a minute, that w/out the Crucible we could win, looking at that map shows you the folly that that thought is.  So, I have no doubt that, and had no doubt, without foreknowledge of the events, that Refusal would result in our extinction.  So I killed them all.  I didn't have to be psychic, just observant.

It took the entire 5th fleet to take down Sovereign, and the Alliance lost 8 ships.  This isn't including what the other Council races lost, just Alliance losses.  It could have been much worse, if Sovereign hadn't decided to "Assume Control" of Saren's husk and try to kill me on the ground.  The Reaper on Rannoch took 3 volleys from the entire Quarian Fleet, and the Normandy, with me painting the exact spot to hit.  Note that there were no Reapers fighting back other than the one on the ground trying to shoot me, and it did shoot me a bunch of times the first time I went through there.

[Goneaviking]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Deciding to try and fight, no matter how futile is not a "crime".  Choosing to deliberately kill billions of people that are actually trying to help you cannot be mitigated by the knowlege of what "might" happen no matter how certain you are it will.  Choosing to actively do a wrong by trying to stop another wrong from happening is not a valid reason for doing it.  Yes, everyone very well will die, but that is not 100% certain no matter what you are told-some may survive somewhere somehow.  Or maybe the kid's programming will spontaneously come apart at the seams.  It is certain you will kill billions of geth.  It is very probable the galaxy will be destroyed.  But refuse is still a maybe while destroy is a certainty.

If someone has the ability to prevent an atrocity, and makes a conscious decision not to do so, they are responsible for the outcome even if they aren't directly involved in it anyway. To deny this is beyond sophistry.

Shepard is explicitly given three options to end the Reaper cycle. Even in the ridiculously farfetched scenario that we could win conventional war at this point in the conflict (the combined fleets of almost every significant species in the galaxy are engaging the reapers and losing decisively) the number of lives lost and damage done would be incalculable.

Refusing to take any of the options isn't simply a gamble, it's a virtual impossibility and the absurd number of lives that would be thrown away on the miniscule possibilty that a handful of people could survive the centuries long purge would certainly not agree that it was a fair trade.

Still and all Shepard does not know that refusal will shut down the crucible.  How would Shepard know that?  I want to ask how many people decided not to refuse or didn't shoot the kid because they thought it would kill everyone-the first time they did it?  Be honest and think to yourself if you really thought it would do what it did or if you were surprised by it.  All the videos I saw of it showed people very surpised.  You can only answer this if you didn't hear about what it did before you played the ending.

It doesn't matter if Shepard expected the Crucible to shut down if he just says no. It makes no difference if it shuts down or simply does nothing. The result is the same. Shepard has a chance to save virtually every person still managing to cling desperately to life - but chooses not to.

On principle.

If you figured out that shooting the kid or refusing his choices would instantly kill everyone without knowing about it that's one thing.  I think you're psychic.  But if it surprised you when you first shot the kid or refused the choices, then refuse is a valid choice for Shepard to make.

Shooting the kid is petulent regardless of the outcome you were expecting. Refusing to choose any of the options is choosing to let the Reapers continue their work.

It's that simple.

Modifié par Goneaviking, 15 août 2012 - 03:24 .

[Isichar]

Shepard was always going to stay true to his beliefs.

I won't let fear compromise who I am.

Low odds in conventional warfare? Screw the odds I'm commander Shepard!

[SeptimusMagistos]

Isichar wrote...

Shepard was always going to stay true to his beliefs.

I won't let fear compromise who I am.

Low odds in conventional warfare? Screw the odds I'm commander Shepard!

Well, it sounds like the odds...

have screwed you.

Seriously though, I'm happy for you, but you have to realize that most Shepard's stuck by their beliefs. It's just that their beliefs don't necessarily stop them from picking an ending.

Heck, my Shepard spent the entire ME2 cooperating with Cerberus. He can handle cooperating with the Catalyst for the fifteen seconds it takes him to shuffle over to his preferred plot device.

[Isichar]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Shepard was always going to stay true to his beliefs.

I won't let fear compromise who I am.

Low odds in conventional warfare? Screw the odds I'm commander Shepard!

Well, it sounds like the odds...

have screwed you.

Seriously though, I'm happy for you, but you have to realize that most Shepard's stuck by their beliefs. It's just that their beliefs don't necessarily stop them from picking an ending.

Heck, my Shepard spent the entire ME2 cooperating with Cerberus. He can handle cooperating with the Catalyst for the fifteen seconds it takes him to shuffle over to his preferred plot device.

Just to clarify choosing to shoot the starchild in the head is still picking an ending, just not the one the catalyst wanted.

[Dharvy]

Isichar wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Shepard was always going to stay true to his beliefs.

I won't let fear compromise who I am.

Low odds in conventional warfare? Screw the odds I'm commander Shepard!

Well, it sounds like the odds...

have screwed you.

Seriously though, I'm happy for you, but you have to realize that most Shepard's stuck by their beliefs. It's just that their beliefs don't necessarily stop them from picking an ending.

Heck, my Shepard spent the entire ME2 cooperating with Cerberus. He can handle cooperating with the Catalyst for the fifteen seconds it takes him to shuffle over to his preferred plot device.

Just to clarify choosing to shoot the starchild in the head is still picking an ending, just not the one the catalyst wanted.

Well of course it didn't want the solution you wanted. I think 99% of the galaxy (an exaggeration I know but at least a good majority) probably didn't want the solution you picked either. To think it found that its solution of reaping, harvesting, and genociding a whole cycle is invalid and is no longer profitable or neccessary and offers you better solutions that needs your help to acheive and you go ahead and refused? True chaos in action. If it found that reaping is invalid and it wants another solution you should give it one to save the lives of the galaxy that put their trust in you.

Your enemy offers you the choice to execute it, in prison it, or pardon it, to end the fight, the war and you up and choose refuse and continue to war?

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

If you figured out that shooting the kid or refusing his choices would instantly kill everyone without knowing about it that's one thing.  I think you're psychic.  But if it surprised you when you first shot the kid or refused the choices, then refuse is a valid choice for Shepard to make.

Sorry to snip this post, but I replied to it above, and just wanted to touch on something that just occured to me in re-reading, and didn't want to ninja edit my other post.

Refuse is a valid choice, even if you know what the consequences are.  There could easily be a Self Righteous Paragon that figures it's better to wipe the slate and let the galaxy start over than to save the current cycle.

The solution to the Rachni Problem?  Kill 'em all.  The solution to the species that killed 'em all for us, and then wanted room to grow?  The Genophage.  Note that the Krogan are also at fault for how they chose to expand.  Once the Reaper threat is uncovered, what did the Council races, including Human do?  Stuck their heads in the sand, and hung Shepard out to dry for the Alpha Relay incident, despite understanding that it was necessary.  I could go on, but you get the idea here.  It wouldn't be hard to justify it even going Paragon, if you looked at the whole story arc, including events that transpired before Shepard was born, some of them well before.  Yes, a lot of good is going to be lost, but enough bad is going to be lost, some of it directly tied to the events at hand, such as the Salarian's back room dealings, and the Asari choosing to stay on the sidelines, until they realized that they weren't as superior as they thought.  However, it is done understanding exactly what will happen, and being willing to accept the consequences.  A concept that my Shepard is intimately familiar with.