98 réponses à ce sujet

[Br3admax]

isnudo wrote...

So, was this actually an attempt to start a guessing game or what?

If it was you really should have kept the Quarians/Geth out of it for a while OP. You should have seen this coming.

No it clearly wasn't. This thread is all about the Morning War. Read all of the OP's later comments. 

[AlexMBrennan]

1.) Since my creation, I am most likely the greatest cause for violent death for organics in the galaxy.

Did you not pay attention in history class? Humans have been at war with other humans all the time, and will continue to invent excuses to kill other humans for the foreseeable future. As such, "all wars ever" will have caused much more violent deaths than a single war with a single faction.

3.) I can easily destroy the galaxy's largest fleet, if allowed to live within the events of ME3.

The galaxy's largest fleet would be the Reapers

4.) I have only given peace a chance when backed to the wall, threatened with the extinction of my species.

That's an outright lie - the geth did not pursue the quarians when they could easily have killed them and instead remained in their small part of the galaxy bothering no one... until the chronically too-dumb-to-live quarians attacked them. Again. And were annihilated. Again.

In the events of ME3, the geth merely defended themselves whilst under attack by the quarians, and are not to blame for the quarian's extinction that resulted from the quarians trying to use quarian civilians as human shields in violation of the laws of war.

5.) I have never shown mercy prior to accpeting peace in exchange for continued existence.

Lie. The geth defended themselves whilst they were under attack; the exorbitant casulties are a result of the quarians arming civilian ships, having civilians on warships and not fleeing hopeless fights.
Once the quarians stopped actively attacking the geth, they ceased fighting. I'd call that mercy, but you seem to be using a fantasy definition more along the lines of "allow irrational xenophobes to massacre you and everyone you know"

.) I have virtually no proponents outside my own species.

The same is true for the jews. Your point being?

7.) Those who've merely tinkered with my technology have sometimes been massacred.

People merely conducting brutal experiments on humans have sometimes been killed too. Your point being?

8.) Every physical platform of mine is built for combat, so I can readily destroy that which is likely to threaten me -- organic lifeforms.

If you can assert bovine excrement like that then I can claim with equal validity that humans have been designed for combat.

By the way, wouldn't a platform designed for combat do better if it had some sort of weapon? You know, like the cannibals?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The thing is, HYR, you failed to include the previous 20,000 plus cycles. Since their creation, the Reapers are definitely the greatest cause of death to organics in the galaxy. The number starts to add up into the quadrillions. Do the reapers deserve death? Yes.

I've already responded to this...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Aside from
the fact that this is flat out incorrect, as the geth were created as
automated labor, "since my creation" is a contradiction of the
restriction you place on this comparison, so we're going to have to
compare both on those terms. Since their creation, the reapers have been the greatest cause for violent death for organics for millions of years.

Yeah, but this is a 20 Questions-style game: there is going to be more than one possible
right answer at first, but each hint is going to narrow it down. From
#1-9, you could reasonably answer both the geth or the Reapers.

#10, however, eliminates the Reapers.

Tip for being an effective forumer: read more, post less.


Second, and more importantly, you've highlighted the clear double-standard people hold between Reaper and non-Reaper species. If one "deserves" death for killing off an apalling number of people, why excuse the geth for the billion they've killed? Rachni? Krogan?? It's ridiculous, as if to say "a billion dead is forgivable, but anything above that is just unacceptable." I polled to see how many people around here free the rachni, and it's a figure well above 70%. We happen to know that 92% of all players cure the genophage -- Wrex/Wreav irrelevant. Over 60% save at least the geth. And the rachni are excused for, among other things, being enthralled. What of the Reapers being controlled? That fact is conveniently ignored.

And that's why I've said, and will say again: you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

So I'm calling BS on "Reapers killed all those previous cycles, so they must die"-nonsense, given how quickly these same people are willing to overlook the geth/rachni/krogans' past transgressions -- it's just a convenient excuse for them.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 14 septembre 2013 - 04:53 .

[The Night Mammoth]

People are willing to overlook the geth/rachni/krogan's past transgressions because they've all shown redeeming qualities, and they're all sapient species who shouldn't be punished for the actions of their ancestors, in the case of the latter two, and for something they didn't understand the real consequences and meaning of in the case of the former.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 14 septembre 2013 - 05:52 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

People are willing to overlook the geth/rachni/krogan's past transgressions because they've all shown redeeming qualities, and they're all sapient species who shouldn't be punished for the actions of their ancestors, in the case of the latter two, and for something they didn't understand the real consequences and meaning of in the case of the former.

And, for the fourth time at this point, I'll ask: how do you determine the punishment that is warranted towards a species without free-will -- especially if a "lack of understanding" is reason enough to excuse one of them?

To say they "deserve" this as punishment for wrongdoing is rather hypocritical, given the way these self-appointed vigilantes have ignored the same wrongdoing already if the geth are allowed to live. Alternatively, one could argue they are too dangerous to be allowed to live, which is actually a fairly valid reason for it, but a suspect one if coming from those who take a chance on the krogan or rachni. One may be doing it in hopes that they will become peaceful, but by curing/freeing them respectively, they *are* made more dangerous by doing so and have proven it to the tune of galactic war.

And as far as "redeeming qualities" go... it's true that they have all been presented in a positive light from time to time. However, it's not as if we don't see or hear of plenty of things that also present them in a negative light, either. In fact, I'd say all three species begin in a position of serious doubts before we are given a few reasons to believe there may still be hope for them. Last we heard of the rachni, they ravaged the galaxy. Krogan did the same and they are not exactly peachy in most of our personal experiences with them. Geth? Well, see the OP for their laundry-list...


You think the OP is ridiculous? Well, it is, because I deliberately made it that way. However, all of that ridiculous logic is frequently used to rationalize picking Destroy, and it becomes particularly funny when it comes from those who support the geth. In fact #6 on the list (which you responded to by saying, "So?") is the subject of a thread being used to argue against the Reapers being left alive in some endings (Sync in particular), floating around on the first page -- inspiring this thread.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 15 septembre 2013 - 02:54 .

[Astartes Marine]

Oh this is a terrible game, the Geth were shot down at number 1.
There have been FAR larger bloodbaths in the ME universe's history, even if you exclude the billions of years of repeating genocide cycles.

Pfft, double standard my ass.

[KaiserShep]

Saving the machines (for a short while) that don't want to kill everyone, and killing the ones that do doesn't really need a whole lot of reasons. It does kind of make a difference that suicide is part of the package deal. I'd kill the reaper slaves long before I'd kill myself. I'd kill the entire geth consensus if it came down to that too, so I make Shepard go in the same direction.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

You people must struggle with reading comprehension. OP clearly said "Since my creation." It's reasonable to assume the Geth were created after the Krogan Rebellions, and so what other entity has caused 5 billion violent deaths in that time period, save possibly the Reapers?

[KaiserShep]

The way I see it, without any exigent circumstances, there'd be no reason to even consider curing the genophage, and the quarians would likely just continue roaming the cosmos, or possibly use any research they gathered to successfully kill the geth before the rest of the galaxy even notices. I agree that there's fairly sound reasons to reject the queen outright, sabotage the cure and destroy the geth, but it's obviously up to you if the risk of saving all of them is acceptable when facing the extermination of your entire species and many others. Since none of those decisions require Shepard to throw him/herself onto the altar as a sacrificial lamb to do so, that does make it a wee bit easier. But it's a different case when coming to the decision of what to do with the reapers, because they were the reason why those risks had to be dealt with so urgently. I'm not concerned with whether or not the slaves deserve to die, but rather consider whether or not everyone (excluding EDI and the geth of course) would be better off if I simply got rid of the dreadnoughts, and allow the rest of the galaxy to harvest any technology they can from their inert corpses, and leave the phantom threat of the new singularity purely to chance.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 15 septembre 2013 - 06:13 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

KaiserShep wrote...

Saving the machines (for a short while) that don't want to kill everyone, and killing the ones that do doesn't really need a whole lot of reasons. It does kind of make a difference that suicide is part of the package deal. I'd kill the reaper slaves long before I'd kill myself. I'd kill the entire geth consensus if it came down to that too, so I make Shepard go in the same direction.

... and again, I have no issue with that general opinion, just the pathetic excuses for "facts" (ala OP) many back it with.


On an unrelated note, I'd like people to take a look at a blog post I just made: [linky].

[Astrogenesis]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 


*Mass Effect 3 Launch Trailer

Major Coates: "10 million dead in the first day. Another 7 million dead by the end of the (first?) week."

17 million casualties per week, on Earth. So, let's use that data and say that the Reapers average 2.4 million casualties on a major homeworld per day. Let's also say that they occupy three major homeworlds (Earth, Palaven, Khar'Shan) and some 10 colonies per with half the casualty rate (totally overshooting it on both counts, but that's kind of the point) at the onset of ME3. So, we're up to [43.2 million casualties per day] ...





Hackett tells us that we lost Earth some 3 weeks back by the end of the Citadel coup, about one third of the way through Mass Effect 3's main plot. So, the Reapers have been at it for 21 days, which equates to 907.2 million casualties at the rate we have pre-determined. So, not quite at the billion mark just yet. Say the Rannoch arc concludes after another three weeks and that number is doubled, we're at 1.8 billion. Let's add another three weeks to account for the Ceberus arc (Thessia, Sanctuary, Cerberus HQ).

And given the invasion of Thessia, we will now add another homeworld and 10 colonies, so the rate has jumped to 57.4 million casualties per day. Another 3 weeks equates to another 1.2 billion casualties to put us at a grand total of 3 billion casualties by the time Shepard has wrapped things up and is only left with taking back Earth (all other missions closed).

Let's add another 1 billion in there for good measure, just because there are other species with colonies and homeworlds to account for (though none as populous as humanity's, the turians', or the asari's, nor as high a priority for the Reapers, nor targetted as early on in the war). So ultimately, we have a subtotal of 4 billion casualties.

If Rannoch was even half as populated as Mass Effect's Earth (~11.2 billion people) before the geth uprising, the Reapers still will not have achieved as much slaughter as the geth did through the Morning War alone (99% * 5.6 = 5.581 bil).




And to think people are precious about this species' sacrifice in Destroy, yet the Reapers must die...

Geth Kill Count: 5.581 Billion

Reaper Kill Count: 4 Billion (plus the ENTIRE galaxy times a million years)

If you listen, you can hear my case closing....

[Astartes Marine]

Astrogenesis wrote...
Geth Kill Count: 5.581 Billion

Reaper Kill Count: 4 Billion (plus the ENTIRE galaxy times a million years)

If you listen, you can hear my case closing....

The Leviathan of Dis was stated to be at least one billion years old...and since Harbinger is the oldest Reaper they've been doing this for longer than that.  So the entire galaxy times a billion years, figure an extermination cycle every 50,000 years...and we have about 20,000 cycles of death and destruction.

[Sir DeLoria]

Astrogenesis wrote...

Geth Kill Count: 5.581 Billion

Reaper Kill Count: 4 Billion (plus the ENTIRE galaxy times a million years)

If you listen, you can hear my case closing....

For the last time, Geth kill count isn't that high:lol:

But this isn't about pure numbers, it's about morals and principles. In this case the OP is right, the Geth are in a way Reapers in micro format. If you want to kill the Reapers, why save the Geth, they're essentially more alike than anything.

[Astartes Marine]

Necanor wrote...
For the last time, Geth kill count isn't that high:lol:

But this isn't about pure numbers, it's about morals and principles. In this case the OP is right, the Geth are in a way Reapers in micro format. If you want to kill the Reapers, why save the Geth, they're essentially more alike than anything.

The Geth can at least choose not to kill, and in the case of Legion try to learn and understand why organics are the way they are.  There is a chance for coexistence with something like the Geth. 

The Reapers on the other hand are good for nothing but killing, it is what they were created to do and nothing else. 

[Jadebaby]

BioWare thanks you for this thread.

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

People are willing to overlook the geth/rachni/krogan's past transgressions because they've all shown redeeming qualities, and they're all sapient species who shouldn't be punished for the actions of their ancestors, in the case of the latter two, and for something they didn't understand the real consequences and meaning of in the case of the former.

And, for the fourth time at this point, I'll ask: how do you determine the punishment that is warranted towards a species without free-will -- especially if a "lack of understanding" is reason enough to excuse one of them?

What species? The Reapers? The Reapers aren't a species deprived of their free will. They're robots with nothing else on their minds but the deaths of everyone in the galaxy. They are little different to a deadly virus. 

To say they "deserve" this as punishment for wrongdoing is rather hypocritical, given the way these self-appointed vigilantes have ignored the same wrongdoing already if the geth are allowed to live. Alternatively, one could argue they are too dangerous to be allowed to live, which is actually a fairly valid reason for it, but a suspect one if coming from those who take a chance on the krogan or rachni. One may be doing it in hopes that they will become peaceful, but by curing/freeing them respectively, they *are* made more dangerous by doing so and have proven it to the tune of galactic war.

I don't think the Reapers deserve punishment. Punishment implies they're deserving of judement by law like a sapient criminal.They are less than that, they are not worthy. I do think they should be destroyed, but for what they want to do in the future, for the threat they pose. I can see why people want to punish them, though. 

And as far as "redeeming qualities" go... it's true that they have all been presented in a positive light from time to time. However, it's not as if we don't see or hear of plenty of things that also present them in a negative light, either.

That I did not deny.

In fact, I'd say all three species begin in a position of serious doubts before we are given a few reasons to believe there may still be hope for them. Last we heard of the rachni, they ravaged the galaxy. Krogan did the same and they are not exactly peachy in most of our personal experiences with them. Geth? Well, see the OP for their laundry-list...

And it is anyone's perogative to punish them as they see fit, but that doesn't excuse the differences between them and the Reapers. 

You think the OP is ridiculous? Well, it is, because I deliberately made it that way. However, all of that ridiculous logic is frequently used to rationalize picking Destroy, and it becomes particularly funny when it comes from those who support the geth. In fact #6 on the list (which you responded to by saying, "So?") is the subject of a thread being used to argue against the Reapers being left alive in some endings (Sync in particular), floating around on the first page -- inspiring this thread.

My response to number 6 still stands. 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Astartes Marine wrote...

The Reapers on the other hand are good for nothing but killing, it is what they were created to do and nothing else. 

rofl.... responses like this are exactly what I was satirizing in the OP.

You just invoked #8 on the list -- "They're all built for combat! They're good for nothing else!"

Nothing else? If the geth can be used for things other than killing, why not the infinitely more capable Reapers?

The Night Mammoth wrote...

What species? The Reapers? The Reapers aren't a species deprived of their free will. They're robots with nothing else on their minds but the deaths of everyone in the galaxy. They are little different to a deadly virus.

Catalyst: "I control the Reapers, (they are my solution)."

There's no ambiguity in that; it's pretty cut-and-dry. The Reapers are indeed without freewill.

Whether or not that changes your opinion is one thing. Like I've been saying all along: you're entitled to your own opinion on this matter. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. This fact is routinely handwaved or outright denied.

In fact, I'd say all three species begin in a position of serious doubts before we are given a few reasons to believe there may still be hope for them. Last we heard of the rachni, they ravaged the galaxy. Krogan did the same and they are not exactly peachy in most of our personal experiences with them. Geth? Well, see the OP for their laundry-list...

And it is anyone's perogative to punish them as they see fit, but that doesn't excuse the differences between them and the Reapers.

I'm obviously not trying to say they're one-in-the-same, but they are a lot more similar than many care to believe.

You think the OP is ridiculous? Well, it is, because I deliberately made it that way. However, all of that ridiculous logic is frequently used to rationalize picking Destroy, and it becomes particularly funny when it comes from those who support the geth. In fact #6 on the list (which you responded to by saying, "So?") is the subject of a thread being used to argue against the Reapers being left alive in some endings (Sync in particular), floating around on the first page -- inspiring this thread.

My response to number 6 still stands.

So you agree that it's a stupid reason to oppose geth and Reaper alike, then?

[Astartes Marine]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
You just invoked #8 on the list -- "They're all built for combat! They're good for nothing else!"

The same list on which the Geth were eliminated after the very first question?

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Nothing else? If the geth can be used for things other than killing, why not the infinitely more capable Reapers?

The danger and risk in letting a horde of Star Destroyer sized starships that have been responsible for a billion years' worth of murder is magnitudes greater than giving the much smaller and much more open to reason synthetics a chance for coexistence.  If the Geth get out of hand they could be handled, if the Reapers (assuming one chose the green beam) decided to keep killing for whatever reason you can do nothing to stop them.

[KaiserShep]

And also, you can't let those damn husks, banshees and marauders steal our jobs. Think of all those elcor that are out of work because clubs are hiring brutes to guard the doors instead. Whatever government replaces the hegemony would have to deal with all those cannibals that want amnesty. And don't forget the rampant swarmer pet trade.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 17 septembre 2013 - 06:20 .

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

What species? The Reapers? The Reapers aren't a species deprived of their free will. They're robots with nothing else on their minds but the deaths of everyone in the galaxy. They are little different to a deadly virus.

Catalyst: "I control the Reapers, (they are my solution)."

There's no ambiguity in that; it's pretty cut-and-dry. The Reapers are indeed without freewill.

Whether or not that changes your opinion is one thing. Like I've been saying all along: you're entitled to your own opinion on this matter. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. This fact is routinely handwaved or outright denied.

I know they don't have free will, I dispute is the idea that they're capable of having free will, that it's being subverted. They're the minions of the Catalyst and that's all they ever will be.

You think the OP is ridiculous? Well, it is, because I deliberately made it that way. However, all of that ridiculous logic is frequently used to rationalize picking Destroy, and it becomes particularly funny when it comes from those who support the geth. In fact #6 on the list (which you responded to by saying, "So?") is the subject of a thread being used to argue against the Reapers being left alive in some endings (Sync in particular), floating around on the first page -- inspiring this thread.

My response to number 6 still stands.

So you agree that it's a stupid reason to oppose geth and Reaper alike, then?

Yes. I'm not even sure I've ever seen someone give that as a reason.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 ^ Then you haven't been paying much attention.


[quote]Astartes Marine wrote...

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
You just invoked #8 on the list -- "They're all built for combat! They're good for nothing else!"[/quote]

The same list on which the Geth were eliminated after the very first question?[/quote]

When did that happen?


[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...
Nothing else? If the geth can be used for things other than killing, why not the infinitely more capable Reapers?[/quote]

The danger and risk in letting a horde of Star Destroyer sized starships that have been responsible for a billion years' worth of murder is magnitudes greater than giving the much smaller and much more open to reason synthetics a chance for coexistence.[/quote]

Ah, well... if Thing #1 hadn't deleted the last thread, you'd know my response to this, but alas...

First off, you are not really answering the question. You said the Reapers are only capable of destruction and war, and nothing else -- as if to suggest the only outcome of not destroying them is that they'll ravage the galaxy. That's ridiculous, of course, for the same reason it would be ridiculous to say that about the geth: we may not have seen them do anything but fight, but saying they can do nothing else is being closed-minded, and likely deliberately. It's entirely possible for them to do alternative things -- possibly even productive things. And their existence comes under different circumstances than when they were hostile, giving us some reason to believe there's a chance they will be acting differently.

And those last two statements were referring to both synthetic entities.

Second... if the danger/risk is reason too great to let the Reapers live, why is it acceptable for the geth within their home system? Geth have already proven a danger of quasi-Reaper proportion to the quarians/Rannoch. I estimated less casualties in a month of the Reaper invasion than through the Morning War, and per JasonShepard's post, I actually overshot the Reaper's kill count pretty considerably. Why must they live under a threat that could unilaterally destroy them, when that's a risk you would not take for yourself?


[quote]If the Geth get out of hand they could be handled, if the Reapers (assuming one chose the green beam) decided to keep killing for whatever reason you can do nothing to stop them.[/quote]


If "handling" the threat is being measured in repelling their movement on a galactic scale, then you're neglecting the immediate threat posed to their neighbors. Consider how many cared to come to the quarians' aid the first time such a war (Morning War) broke out -- under much better circumstances. In the wake of the war, an economy in shambles and resources scarce, the galaxy will already have its hands full with rebuilding. And if a supposed geth uprising indeed requires a galactic response, it will probably be much too late for the quarians anyway (Rannoch would likely fall first).

As for the next part... there's no way to account for "whatever reason." Like, ever. If, for whatever reason, the geth decided to go wipe out the quarians after uploading the Reaper code, nobody could have stopped them from doing it, either.

Without reasonable concern, though, it's not worth acting on (even such concerns aren't always enough, ala Rannoch).

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

 ^ Then you haven't been paying much attention.

To what, specifically? 

[JasonShepard]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I estimated less casualties in a month of the Reaper invasion than through the Morning War, and per JasonShepard's post, I actually overshot the Reaper's kill count pretty considerably. Why must they live under a threat that could unilaterally destroy them, when that's a risk you would not take for yourself?

If you're going to reference a post of mine, then I will note that I feel you rather underestimated the length of the Reaper War - I'd usually peg it at around 4 or 5 months. (In a playthrough where I tried to account for travel times every time I went from one place to another, that's roughly what it comes to.) However, that still doesn't put the Reaper Kill count for this cycle at anything near species extinction level...
EDIT: Having just checked, I'm closer to 14 weeks compared to your estimate of 9 weeks. So, actually, we're not that different on timescales.

But, as I also noted in my original post, if the Reapers win, their kill count will MASSIVELY outstrip that of the Geth. So, regarding military strength and various other factors, I consider the Reapers to FAR outstrip the Geth in threat level, even if not in total body count so far this cycle. Which is my main justification for being willing to destroy them but not willing to destroy the Geth...

...But then, I picked Control, so this discussion doesn't really affect me.

Modifié par JasonShepard, 17 septembre 2013 - 11:56 .

[Astartes Marine]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...
The same list on which the Geth were eliminated after the very first question?

When did that happen?

If you had actually been paying attention to the history of Mass Effect as well as putting serious thought into this thread instead of just doing this for the lulz of rustling some jimmies, you might remember that the Reapers have been butchering the galaxy's citizens for over a billion years.

So when you say, and I quote, "Since my creation, I am most likely the greatest cause for violent death for organics in the galaxy.", you leave room for no other option than the Reapers since no other group could even hope to contend with that kill count.

Even if you limit it to just this cycle, the Geth ceased their aggression towards the Quarians once the Quarians retreated and went into a self-imposed exile for 300 years...until a Reaper showed up.
The Reapers as a whole however would not stop the slaughter and would eventually, if they haven't already by the finale, massively eclipse the Geth in total body count. 

HYR 2.0 wrote...
First off, you are not really answering the
question. You said the Reapers are only capable of destruction and war,
and nothing else -- as if to suggest the only outcome of not destroying
them is that they'll ravage the galaxy.

When all you have is a hammer, you start to see nails everywhere. 
All the Reapers have ever known is killing and death, I would not expect them to suddenly start being poets or dancers or philosophers. 

HYR 2.0 wrote...
That's ridiculous, of course,
for the same reason it would be ridiculous to say that about the geth:
we may not have seen them do anything but fight, but saying they
can do nothing else is being closed-minded, and likely deliberately.
It's entirely possible for them to do alternative things -- possibly
even productive things.

The Geth were not all created for war, this is explicitly stated several times throughout the series, again if you paid attention... 
The majority of them were created to do mundane tasks like manual labor.

HYR 2.0 wrote...
And their existence comes under different
circumstances than when they were hostile, giving us some reason to
believe there's a chance they will be acting differently.

I have no such faith that the Reapers are capable of change.   And they can still indoctrinate...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Second...
if the danger/risk is reason too great to let the Reapers live, why is
it acceptable for the geth within their home system? Geth have already
proven a danger of quasi-Reaper proportion to the quarians/Rannoch.

It is laughable to compare a young race of semi-sentient AIs (before the Reaper code plot fubar) could be compared in risk factor to the horde of multi-kilometer long warships responsible for a billion years' worth of extinction.  Geth also lack the ability to bend the will of others to do their bidding in the form of indoctrination. 

Aside from that if you had paid attention to the ME history you would know that the Geth's rebellion was in self defense.  They fought for their right to exist.  Common sense would dictate that if treated properly and given the rights they deserve they would be quite amicable...

HYR 2.0 wrote...
Why must they live under a
threat that could unilaterally destroy them, when that's a risk you
would not take for yourself?

You give the Geth too much credit.  The Morning War only had the Quarians involved.  If the Geth openly attacked everyone you'd have the Turians, Salarians, Asari, Humans, and most likely the Krogan all involved.  The odds would not be in the Geth's favor and they're smart enough to know that.  Sure it's a risk letting them live because as far as anyone knows they might be just that stupid to start a shooting war with everyone...but that risk is minimal in comparison to letting the aforementioned fleet of living warships that can mentally enslave whomever they come into contact with wander freely.



In the end none of this really applies to me anyways, I chose the blue beam.
From my point of view, either the Reapers get destroyed or put under my heel until they've
outlived their usefulness, they're far too dangerous to release into the
wild without a leash.  The indoctrination capabilities alone should
mark them as high priority targets.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 18 septembre 2013 - 06:55 .