1388 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Killing off every single Rachni was necesary to save the Galaxy? I am surprised.

Did the populace disagree? Were they not okay with the extermination of the Rachni?

It's about checks of power. The Council, time and time again, has proven that it can do whatever it wants to. That people supported that is irrelevant.

That is EXACTLY what is relevant here. I can see from your post that we are arguing two different things, which I will get to.

Every leader in history who committed genocide was supported by thousands if not millions of people. Popular support for a governement does not indicate morality or benevolence.

No, it indicates consent. I am not arguing that the Council is checked to always be moral. I am arguing that WHEN a situation arises where the Council is going against the desires of either the populace or the political leaders of a race, you will see the limit of their power.

I am not making a moral argument. I am making an argument about the limits of the Council's power, which can be shown when/if they make decisions that for example the political leaders of each race (who control the military, by the way) disagree with. Any such distinctions are irrelevant for Shepard-Reaper, because he could make a decision that 100% of the populace disagrees with and there isn't a damn thing to be done about it.

Edit: Easy example: the Reaper Cycle. If the Council decided to start liquifying their respective races into goo for machines, they'd be overthrown immediately. If Shepard did it, we'd have a bunch of new Reapers flying around.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 20 décembre 2012 - 04:02 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Don't forget Vorcha and Batarian.

 I am arguing that WHEN a situation arises where the Council is going against the desires of either the populace or the political leaders of a race, you will see the limit of their power.

What limits of power? The main military power in the Council is the Turian Hierarchy, a military dictatorship that doesn't give a damn for popular opinion.

Also quite frankly if the only thing that can stop you from making horrible decisions is popular support then that's a very bad way to lead. Why? Because popular opinion can and will be manipulated through propaganda.

 Edit: Easy example: the Reaper Cycle. If the Council decided to start liquifying their respective races into goo for machines, they'd be overthrown immediately. If Shepard did it, we'd have a bunch of new Reapers flying around.

You say that as if there has never been something such as secret agencies or black ops...oh wait.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 04:05 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Xandurpein wrote...

The real test of any so called benevolent dictator isn't what laws he/she tries to enact. It's what the dictator does when the people no longer wants to be led.

Sometimes what the people want is not what is best for them. In such a case a dictator will have to question himself whether he wants to give the people what they want or whether he wants to give the people what is best for them.

If the people no longer want ReaperShep guarding and/or ruling the galaxy and it is indeed best for the people if ReaperShep would disappear, I'm sure he'll at least consider leaving. I know my Shepard would. I know I would.

[Xandurpein]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Whether Shepard is "good" or not is not important. "Good" and "bad" is all a matter of perspective. What is important is the question whether Shepard is a good leader. The answer to that is a full and clear YES, as is clearly portayed over the past 3 games and confirmed by many of the NPC characters in the game.

Maybe not everyone will agree with Shepards leadership and how he does it, but that doesn't factually make him any less of a good leader.

That statement is so flawed on so many levels. You can't reduce leadership to the ability ot make other people do their bidding. By that definition a great many tyrants were also great leaders. Of course your policies matters too. There are also countless examples of leaders who were great, until they got out of their depth. Nowhere in the game do we get information that suggests that Shepard is everyone's choice for a god of the Galaxy.

Robo-shepard is answerable to no one and he has only raw physical force to legitimize his claim to the role as arbiter.

That is completely false. Please try again.

Oh? Enlighten me. Did he win the elections? Was he chosen by a council of Elders? Did the Lady in the Lake hand him a magic sword?

EDIT. OK the last post was too flippant. Yes, he worked hard to unite the galaxy against the Reapers, but that doesn't automatically make him a great pecetime leader. Winston Churchill was a great wartime leader, but very mediocre in peace.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 20 décembre 2012 - 04:09 .

[Xandurpein]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Sometimes what the people want is not what is best for them. In such a case a dictator will have to question himself whether he wants to give the people what they want or whether he wants to give the people what is best for them.

Do you even see the supreme vanity in assuming that the dictator can know better than the people what is best for them?

[CronoDragoon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Don't forget Vorcha and Batarian.

 I am arguing that WHEN a situation arises where the Council is going against the desires of either the populace or the political leaders of a race, you will see the limit of their power.

What limits of power? The main military power in the Council is the Turian Hierarchy, a military dictatorship that doesn't give a damn for popular opinion.

When Shepard couldn't get Council support in ME3, what did he do? He, according to his own words, bypassed the Council and appealed to the political leaders of the races directly.

I keep mentioning the populace, but in reality popular opinion isn't even necessary for my point to be made. The seperation of Council power and political/military power for each race shows that the Council could be easily overthrown. What would they fight back with? Spectres?

[The Heretic of Time]

What many people forget is that ReaperShep does not have any needs of his own. This makes him by definition a better ruler than any ruler who does have his own needs. What makes ReaperShep an ideal ruler is the fact that he isn't biased.

A human ruler will always look out for the needs of humanity first.
An asari ruler will always look out for the needs of the asari first.
A turian ruler will always look out for the needs of the turians first.
Etc. etc. etc.


With the current council, when the interests of the volus clash with the interests of the asari, the volus will always pull on the short end of the stick. The volus will always be worse of than the asari.

This is not the case when ReaperShep is ruling the galaxy. He can and he probably will indeed make sure that every single race has an equal saying. He will make sure that all have a voice, not just the races on the council.

[Costin_Razvan]

The Council is run by the governments of the Asari, Alliance, Salarians and Turians and they have every interest to continue it as it is. It keeps them at the top where they want to be.

No governement or leader has ever had real unlimited power, they would be God then, not even Shepard-Catalyst can do EVERYTHING he wants with no consequences. History shows us that people will resist even when they have no chance to win if they feel that they have no other alternative.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 04:13 .

[CronoDragoon]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What many people forget is that ReaperShep does not have any needs of his own. This makes him by definition a better ruler than any ruler who does have his own needs. What makes ReaperShep an ideal ruler is the fact that he isn't biased.

A human ruler will always look out for the needs of humanity first.
An asari ruler will always look out for the needs of the asari first.
A turian ruler will always look out for the needs of the turians first.
Etc. etc. etc.


With the current council, when the interests of the volus clash with the interests of the asari, the volus will always pull on the short end of the stick. The volus will always be worse of than the asari.

This is not the case when ReaperShep is ruling the galaxy. He can and he probably will indeed make sure that every single race has an equal saying. He will make sure that all have a voice, not just the races on the council.

Like I've been saying, it's a very interesting scenario. Most if not all rulers concentrate on solidifying/expanding their power. What would a ruler look like that didn't need to care about that?

[Vigilant111]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

You mean Shepard Catalyst? That depends on him. I wouldn't know that and neither do you. All we can do is speculate or headcanon what our own Shepard would do in that ending.


Edit: But since Shepard Catalyst could easily start reaping again, I assume that in the end, he answers to no-one but himself.

A governement that answer to itself? What does this sound like... *scratches chin

In another post you said that Shepard Catalyst has personal inprints in it, and that it is more like a god than a politician... have you heard of the expression of "wrath of the gods"?

Even the most paragon Shepard says "You... big... stupid jelly fish"

Modifié par Vigilant111, 20 décembre 2012 - 04:16 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Xandurpein wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Sometimes what the people want is not what is best for them. In such a case a dictator will have to question himself whether he wants to give the people what they want or whether he wants to give the people what is best for them.

Do you even see the supreme vanity in assuming that the dictator can know better than the people what is best for them?

There is no vanity in it at all. When I'm sick, a doctor knows better what is best for me than I do. When I'm in financial trouble, a financial adviser knows better what is best for me than I do. When my car is broken, my car mechanic knows better what is best for my car than I do. Etc. etc. etc.

Sometimes other people know better what is best for you than you yourself do. Deal with it.

[CronoDragoon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The Council is run by the governments of the Asari, Alliance, Salarians and Turians and they have every interest to continue it as it is. It keeps them at the top where they want to be.

Because the Council is useful to them, yes. In other words, the Council is no more than a tool that would be discarded as soon as it became counterproductive. The real power still lies with those who have brute force on their side (the military) which is still the governments of the races, which are NOT the same as the Council.

[Xandurpein]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What many people forget is that ReaperShep does not have any needs of his own. This makes him by definition a better ruler than any ruler who does have his own needs. What makes ReaperShep an ideal ruler is the fact that he isn't biased.

Well that was a lot of head canon and unfounded assumption is just a few sentences. How can you possibly say that he's not biased? Because he's just a robotic AI? That's what started the whole mess in the first place. Or is it because you believe that your own canon Shepard is completely unbiased?

[Costin_Razvan]

Or is it because you believe that your own canon Shepard is completely unbiased?

There is no reason he can't believe that.

 Because the Council is useful to them, yes. In other words, the Council is no more than a tool that would be discarded as soon as it became counterproductive. The real power still lies with those who have brute force on their side (the military) which is still the governments of the races, which are NOT the same as the Council.

Every governement is a tool for people, few or many. A tool to control others, to administrate a population, to offer common laws, they are all ultimately tools.

The Council is a tool controlled by a select number of people who only care about their own interests at the cost of everyone else's and as Hanar points out, they have to do so to a certain degree.

Shepard doesn't.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 décembre 2012 - 04:19 .

[The Heretic of Time]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What many people forget is that ReaperShep does not have any needs of his own. This makes him by definition a better ruler than any ruler who does have his own needs. What makes ReaperShep an ideal ruler is the fact that he isn't biased.

A human ruler will always look out for the needs of humanity first.
An asari ruler will always look out for the needs of the asari first.
A turian ruler will always look out for the needs of the turians first.
Etc. etc. etc.


With the current council, when the interests of the volus clash with the interests of the asari, the volus will always pull on the short end of the stick. The volus will always be worse of than the asari.

This is not the case when ReaperShep is ruling the galaxy. He can and he probably will indeed make sure that every single race has an equal saying. He will make sure that all have a voice, not just the races on the council.

Like I've been saying, it's a very interesting scenario. Most if not all rulers concentrate on solidifying/expanding their power. What would a ruler look like that didn't need to care about that?

I guess a ruler that doesn't have any needs of his own and doesn't need to look out for his own interests will be a far better ruler than any ruler who does have to look after his own needs and interests. Like I said, such a ruler will be truly unbiased, unlike any other ruler.

[Soda Master]

The Control ending could end up being one of the best things that ever happened to the galaxy. Or it could end up being the worst. It ends up being a question of risk vs. reward - is what the galaxy could gain from the Control ending worth risking what could happen if it goes south?


My personal view is that having any one person or entity be in a sole position of power (particularly in a scenario where that person could not be defeated and would never die) isn't a very good idea. The Council, for all that they are corrupt and imperfect, are just people. They can be overthrown or replaced. Reaper!Shepard cannot. (And who can say what the effects of Reaperization may have been on Shepard's psyche, be they in the short-term or the long-term.)

[CronoDragoon]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
I guess a ruler that doesn't have any needs of his own and doesn't need to look out for his own interests will be a far better ruler than any ruler who does have to look after his own needs and interests. Like I said, such a ruler will be truly unbiased, unlike any other ruler.

Well, better or worse, he won't be bad because he's selfish or power-hungry. He could still be a bad ruler for other reasons, but insofar as rulers can often be bad for their people because of the pursuit of power, I think you are right.

[The Heretic of Time]

Xandurpein wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What many people forget is that ReaperShep does not have any needs of his own. This makes him by definition a better ruler than any ruler who does have his own needs. What makes ReaperShep an ideal ruler is the fact that he isn't biased.

Well that was a lot of head canon and unfounded assumption is just a few sentences. How can you possibly say that he's not biased? Because he's just a robotic AI? That's what started the whole mess in the first place. Or is it because you believe that your own canon Shepard is completely unbiased?

There is no headcanon in that at all. What do the reapers need other than perhaps eezo to keep themselves running? Nothing. They don't need food, they don't need territory, they don't need specific living conditions (they can survive even in dark space just fine), they don't need any planets or systems, they don't need anything. This is not headcanon, this is a well-known fact.

Because the reapers don't need anything, they are indeed truly unbiased when it comes to the squables and daily problems of the galaxy. Because the reapers don't need to look after themselves, they can truly look after the galaxy and all the people in it, without being biased and without the need of putting their own needs in front of the needs of others (because they don't have any needs of their own, except for eezo perhaps).

[Maniccc]

Xilizhra wrote...

What I'm saying is that I don't believe I can make the choice for the geth for them to die, and certainly can't make that choice for the Reapers. With Destroy out of the question, I believe that Control is the more predictable and overall safer of the remaining options.

I do not, personally, as the Catalyst, plan on interfering much in the minutiae of government; that's what I keep the Council around for. My vision, simply put, is a galaxy free of war and large-scale conflict in general; there's other things I'd like, but I can't really use the Reapers to enforce those.

And my point is this: you are ignoring the ramifications of control.  You have chosen control based on what?  Based on your distaste of a result given to you by a homicidal thing, which as we have seen, is an impossible basis upon which to make a moral choice.

You do not plan as catalyst to meddle much, etc....  This is irrelevant.  YOU are not shep, first of all, and YOU have no say about what happens after the fact.  Furthermore, shep would be changed, and would no longer be shep.  Shep would be partly herself, partly an AI construct that has deeply flawed ideas, so you have no basis to determine what shep would or would not do.  Like I said, you are projecting based on nothing.  Arguing your intention as shep-god is mere head canon, and is highly questionable for the reasons just mentioned.  Not to mention that shep-god specifically states the opposite of your head canon, she will "ensure" etc.  What does this "ensuring" mean in any practical sense in the long term?  We have no idea.

And you call me simplistic?

I never called you simplistic, but your entire position is very simplistic, and quite naive.  This has been my point from the very beginning.  You are ignoring many aspects of your decision, and basing the whole thing off of one consequence:  genocide of the Geth, while ignoring the coinsequences of the other choice.  This is simplistic, is it not?  I could say "myopic" if you prefer.

I  apologize if anything smacked of condescension.  This was not my intent.  I am speaking objectively here.  Saying your position is "simplistic" is not an insult of you, it is an assessment of your idea, for example.  This is not personal, we are discussing objects, specifically of the type we call ideas.  I am not trying to condescend to you, but wish to merely clarify that we are speaking impersonally.

[Xandurpein]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

There is no vanity in it at all. When I'm sick, a doctor knows better what is best for me than I do. When I'm in financial trouble, a financial adviser knows better what is best for me than I do. When my car is broken, my car mechanic knows better what is best for my car than I do. Etc. etc. etc.

Sometimes other people know better what is best for you than you yourself do. Deal with it.

I still get to chose which doctor I want to see, and which politician I want to elect.

And the doctor analogy really reminds of this movie. Especially the end of the trailer...

www.youtube.com/watch

(Great movie by the way...)

[Xilizhra]

You do not plan as catalyst to meddle much, etc.... This is irrelevant. YOU are not shep, first of all, and YOU have no say about what happens after the fact. Furthermore, shep would be changed, and would no longer be shep. Shep would be partly herself, partly an AI construct that has deeply flawed ideas, so you have no basis to determine what shep would or would not do. Like I said, you are projecting based on nothing. Arguing your intention as shep-god is mere head canon, and is highly questionable for the reasons just mentioned. Not to mention that shep-god specifically states the opposite of your head canon, she will "ensure" etc. What does this "ensuring" mean in any practical sense in the long term? We have no idea.

I continue to roleplay as the Shepard-Catalyst because my actions determine its personality and beliefs. When I say "I plan," it can be inferred to being the Shepard-Catalyst; I have as much control over that, as a player, as I do Shepard herself. What I ensure is an end to large-scale conflict. Also, which ideas, exactly, are "deeply flawed?"

I never called you simplistic, but your entire position is very simplistic, and quite naive. This has been my point from the very beginning. You are ignoring many aspects of your decision, and basing the whole thing off of one consequence: genocide of the Geth, while ignoring the coinsequences of the other choice. This is simplistic, is it not? I could say "myopic" if you prefer.

Genocide of the geth and the Reapers both, remember. And it's no more simplistic or myopic than your dislike of alleged future tyranny.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 20 décembre 2012 - 04:25 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Xandurpein wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

There is no vanity in it at all. When I'm sick, a doctor knows better what is best for me than I do. When I'm in financial trouble, a financial adviser knows better what is best for me than I do. When my car is broken, my car mechanic knows better what is best for my car than I do. Etc. etc. etc.

Sometimes other people know better what is best for you than you yourself do. Deal with it.

I still get to chose which doctor I want to see, and which politician I want to elect.

And the doctor analogy really reminds of this movie. Especially the end of the trailer...

www.youtube.com/watch

(Great movie by the way...)

 I knew it would only be a matter of time before this thread would get Godwin'd .


That movie sucked by the way. It was not as cool or funny as I thought it would be. It was mainly just a really weird movie.

[The Heretic of Time]

Maniccc wrote...

Furthermore, shep would be changed, and would no longer be shep.  Shep would be partly herself, partly an AI construct that has deeply flawed ideas, so you have no basis to determine what shep would or would not do.

And again the fusion headcanon.

When will people stop using their own headcanon as arguments? The Catalyst Shepard is not a fusion between anything or anyone. Everyone who says the Shepard Catalyst is a fusion between Shepard and the Starchild are making this up. It's pure headcanon and frankly, I don't give a **** about your headcanon.

[Xandurpein]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What many people forget is that ReaperShep does not have any needs of his own. This makes him by definition a better ruler than any ruler who does have his own needs. What makes ReaperShep an ideal ruler is the fact that he isn't biased.

Well that was a lot of head canon and unfounded assumption is just a few sentences. How can you possibly say that he's not biased? Because he's just a robotic AI? That's what started the whole mess in the first place. Or is it because you believe that your own canon Shepard is completely unbiased?

There is no headcanon in that at all. What do the reapers need other than perhaps eezo to keep themselves running? Nothing. They don't need food, they don't need territory, they don't need specific living conditions (they can survive even in dark space just fine), they don't need any planets or systems, they don't need anything. This is not headcanon, this is a well-known fact.

Because the reapers don't need anything, they are indeed truly unbiased when it comes to the squables and daily problems of the galaxy. Because the reapers don't need to look after themselves, they can truly look after the galaxy and all the people in it, without being biased and without the need of putting their own needs in front of the needs of others (because they don't have any needs of their own, except for eezo perhaps).

By your definition Catalyst is the ideal ruler already, the way he is. Maybe the game had it all wrong and we should just submit then? Maybe we risk subverting Catalyst's flawless logic when we mix it with Shepard's human bias? Maybe objectivly we'll all be better off as a giant metal cuttlefish after all..?

[The Heretic of Time]

Xandurpein wrote...

By your definition Catalyst is the ideal ruler already, the way he is. Maybe the game had it all wrong and we should just submit then? Maybe we risk subverting Catalyst's flawless logic when we mix it with Shepard's human bias? Maybe objectivly we'll all be better off as a giant metal cuttlefish after all..?

The Catalyst as it is, is not an ideal ruler. He's an AI construct that lacks perspective. Like any other AI in the mass-effect universe, he has no understanding of organic moral values and ethics. Shepard, being an organic himself, does.


And again, you use your own headcanon instead of the actual lore of the games. For the last time: NO, SHEPARD DOES NOT GET MIXED WITH ANY FLAWED LOGIC AT ALL. SHEPARD REPLACES THE CATALYST AND HIS FLAWED LOGIC.

Read that? He REPLACES the Catalyst. No fusion, but REPLACEMENT.