67 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

We saw how the Council reacted to the Reaper invasion in Mass Effect 3 - each refused to send aid to Earth, then began shoring up their own defenses while Earth took the brunt of the post-Batarian invasion.

However, before this Reaper invasion, a millenia ago the Council had already waged a 300 year war with the Rachni, and a 100 year war with the Krogan. Do you think they behaved the same way at the start of previous wars, and only united when they were all under threat/attack?

[DeinonSlayer]

They did nothing about Krogan expansionism even as the complaints rolled in until an Asari world on Thessia's doorstep was targeted for "settlement."

Their response to the Morning War was to (quietly) exterminate the AI they were (quietly) developing (as seen in Citadel DLC), then turn around and heap draconian sanctions on the few survivors, in essence denouncing what was left of the entire Quarian species before the entire galaxy before showing them to the airlock - funnily enough, the Council's own laws dictated the Geth be shut down in the first place and were at least partly to blame for what happened.

They were content to let the Geth roll over human colonies in the traverse, refusing even to step up patrols of their own borders "for fear of provoking war with the terminus," even though a mere eighty years earlier they were willing to send dreadnoughts into the Phoenix Massing cluster (Terminus space) to evict the Quarians from Ekuna.

Honestly, I think the deal in ME1 was that they were comfortable with letting the heretics put us uppity humans back in our place - sitting back and letting the Geth do it kept their hands clean.

Short answer, yes - they act primarily in their own interest. They're quick to respond to things which directly threaten their power, but they will cut you loose the second you turn to them for help.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 28 janvier 2014 - 06:54 .

[Nightwriter]

You mean is there a history of complacency there? Wouldn't surprise me.

[AntiChri5]

The biggest problem is the asari. Whenever they hit a problem they just wait around until some other race comes along and solves it for them.

An entire race of damsels in distress.

[Han Shot First]

Tevos was right.

While Earth was getting pulverized it bought time for the other factions to shore up defenses. It may have sucked for Shepard to hear, since it was his species' homeworld, but it was correct.

Also Palaven and Thessia are many times more strategically important than Earth.

The whole "Let's save Earth everyone!" plotline was kind of silly.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 28 janvier 2014 - 10:24 .

[Nightwriter]

AntiChri5 wrote...

The biggest problem is the asari. Whenever they hit a problem they just wait around until some other race comes along and solves it for them.

An entire race of damsels in distress.

Or sloth demons.

That weird eyes-go-black thing? Clear sign of demonic possession.

[Artifex_Imperius]

If reapers did not exist. would not a peaceful race be more important. Imagine if a warlike race were to have discovered the citadel first and refused to share. all out war. Even humanity values democracy and diplomacy over war isnt that why we established the UN.

remember, asari were the first species to discover the citadel. and they accepted the salarians openly. and it was the asari and salarians who where quick to stop the conflict between humans and turians.

In context of realism it would be most important to encounter another race that is peaceful in nature.

prudent is the best way to describe asari methods. reflection in humanity even today no country in the right mind is in a rush to go to war or be in conflict.

Modifié par Artifex_Imperius, 28 janvier 2014 - 12:46 .

[Dean_the_Young]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

They did nothing about Krogan expansionism even as the complaints rolled in until an Asari world on Thessia's doorstep was targeted for "settlement."

Their response to the Morning War was to (quietly) exterminate the AI they were (quietly) developing (as seen in Citadel DLC), then turn around and heap draconian sanctions on the few survivors, in essence denouncing what was left of the entire Quarian species before the entire galaxy before showing them to the airlock - funnily enough, the Council's own laws dictated the Geth be shut down in the first place and were at least partly to blame for what happened.

They were content to let the Geth roll over human colonies in the traverse, refusing even to step up patrols of their own borders "for fear of provoking war with the terminus," even though a mere eighty years earlier they were willing to send dreadnoughts into the Phoenix Massing cluster (Terminus space) to evict the Quarians from Ekuna.

Honestly, I think the deal in ME1 was that they were comfortable with letting the heretics put us uppity humans back in our place - sitting back and letting the Geth do it kept their hands clean.

Short answer, yes - they act primarily in their own interest. They're quick to respond to things which directly threaten their power, but they will cut you loose the second you turn to them for help.

There's also the whole point of letting the Alliance be solely responsible for the success or failure of Saren, with more conspiracy rabits down that hole.


Of course, the richest part of all is that the Council in ME3 pretty much proves Ashley's Dog and Bear analogy right on come ME3. Who would have thought?

[Barquiel]

They refused to send aid to Earth because any counter-offensive at the beginning of the war would have concluded with a disastrous defeat. The codex entry for Udina's coup made this pretty clear...

Persistent rumors suggest that Udina might have been a high-functioning victim of Reaper indoctrination. His actions played right into the Reapers' plans: even if the coup failed, it would damage Citadel governance. If it succeeded, his plan to retake Earth would likely have turned into a military blunder that Council forces could ill afford.

But even if the council was to say "All asari/salarian/turian forces, go die on Earth!" the matriarchs/dalatrass/primarch would have simply overruled them (and had roles been reversed and Thessia or Sur'kesh were invaded first the alliance wouldn't have responded any different, as the war room guards point out). The Asari helped to evacuate some human colonies while the turians had their own problems on Palavan, but sending the united fleets of the Alliance, Turians, Asari and everyone else to Earth never made any sense strategically, at least not until the citadel was moved there.

Modifié par Barquiel, 28 janvier 2014 - 03:06 .

[Obadiah]

General comment: sounds like the behavior of the members of the Council is similar to rational actors maximizing benefit for themselves, over the whole.

There is a version of a Prisoner's Dilema experiment that shows that once one party chooses to betray another to maximize benefit, if the experiment is repeated over and over, a cycle develops where participants start betraying each other repeatedly as a form of retaliation. Maybe that's what is acting out in a grander scale in the history of the Council.

Modifié par Obadiah, 28 janvier 2014 - 04:46 .

[SwobyJ]

Yes, they are 'rational actors'.

They're supposed to be ones that have reasoning that makes sense.. for them and the sake of their shared system. But not for the larger threat that is beating down their doors, whether that be rachni, krogan, geth/AI, or eventually Reapers.

But make no mistake - outside of these larger issues that they're not as equipped to deal with, Council governance is very likely the best (peacetime) governance that the galaxy has ever seen. I'm assuming a lot with that, but I think the writing suggests this. Anything before it may have been at least somewhat more domineering and overtly self-serving. (It would have helped to learn about other cycles than the Prothian and Leviathan one, so yeah I'm guessing here)

It's that whole chaos vs order thingy. Council is Soft Order:
-unable to see the clear threats (Reapers, violent armies that cannot be tamed)
-under the thumb of larger invisible authorities (Reaper manipulation, maybe more)
-yet advancing better, overall, than other systems would have (Prothians absorbed everyone else, = all those other species effectively 'die')
-capable of finding new solutions to things as long as they wake up to the situation (co-operation instead of strict competition, when prodded to action in ME3, we see so many NPCs making advancements that could have rivaled anything the Prothians managed... and more, if they had the time)

I don't think things like the Council are supposed to be seen positively for now, so I don't blame the depiction of them, nor people's highly negative opinions of them. Like, I think that's intended. We're supposed to follow Shepard (the individual) and the Alliance foremost, with some deviance away from that at times.

I do think, however, that our tunes may change later on. In a galaxy of chaos (which is what I feel we'll be exploring in the next game), do we embrace that, or seek some sort of order, any good order, so that multiple societies and those we care about can survive and thrive?

The Council may have had grave imperfections, but they were also eventually there to do what they needed to against whatever threats faced them. It's just that their solutions to their larger threats were always going to be more reactionary than in direct action. Rachni - Krogan. Krogan - Genophage. Reapers - Uniting. Takes a few responsible actors to prod it forward, is all.

Point is we can hate on the Council and for good reason, but the alternatives so far are not too appealing. We could laud the Prothian Empire for some things, but I think few of us would love to live in that society during that time (even its more golden age). Same with Leviathan rule, and I will guess that all or almost all other cycles had similar issues.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 28 janvier 2014 - 05:13 .

[Steelcan]

Human ascendency is inevitable, why do the lesser races struggle against it

[SwobyJ]

StreetMagic wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Shepard (the individual) and the Alliance foremost, with some deviance away from that at times.

I do think, however, that our tunes may change later on. In a galaxy of chaos (which is what I feel we'll be exploring in the next game), do we embrace that, or seek some sort of order, any good order, so that multiple societies and those we care about can survive and thrive?.

Multiple species can thrive in chaos too. That's what the Terminus and Omega is all about.

imo
Chaos - Much more constant but likely less deaths overall, non-attempt at stopping deaths
Order - Much less constant but likely more deaths overall, attempt at few deaths and it is partically successful
Transcendant (gonna toss Reaper thinking in) - Varied death frequences, much much more deaths overall, attempt at no deaths

when taken to their stricter forms of ideas..

Multiple species can thrive in chaos, but even in the Terminus System, that was under the rule of Aria. And many still die and live in the dirt anyway. Terminus is shown to not even be more 'pure' chaos. (Nothing in the cycle is, and that's by Reaper design)

It's why I would love to see the cycle of the Leviathans. Considering how they 'ruled', the only 'order' that existed there was the Leviathans trying to keep organics from killing themselves off.

Probably a lot more chaotic than Terminus Systems.

When you try to squeeze order out of chaotic entities (which in this case, I'll call 'organics', though that is massive Reaper-like oversimplification), it'll work for a while, but then express itself in massive deaths and corruption.
In fact, that's a common sci-fi thing. Cerberus is a great example of it, of a faction that is working to save humanity, but killing tons of humans while trying to, and even trying to kill off the concept of 'human' as we currently think of it.

Terminus is what I consider a 'regulated chaos'. It is allowed by the Council because their reach doesn't go that far... yet. And the species that live there, do so in typical squaler, unless they're the most wealthy.
And that's what it is. It is, to whatever degree, survival of the fittest. The cycle we explore, exists at various levels of order and chaos, with the Citadel not as perfect order (more 'Regulated order' by the Reapers), and Omega not as perfect chaos (more 'Regulated chaos' by the Citadel/Council).

I'll just say that I wouldn't expect the Volus, Hanar, and Elcor to do so well if they only relied on the Terminus systems. They may be under a grudging (on both ends) protection by others, but in Terminus they would be so exposed that they'd lose all power and be ripe for picking by pirates, vorcha gangs, and economic exploitation.

Multiple species can exist, sure, but they'd eventually have to come under the 'chaotic order' of *one* species, without any chance of advancement unless they utterly toppled the big dog.

[SwobyJ]

Steelcan wrote...

Human ascendency is inevitable, why do the lesser races struggle against it

^ And this is why agreeing with TIM in ME2 is Renegade, but agreeing to the Reaper control in ME3 (without any 'humans only rule' part attached) is Paragon.
Different specifics to goals through decisions.

[ImaginaryMatter]

My main problem with the Council is that they barely react to Geth invasion in ME1. Considering the results of races who messed with the Council (Rachni extinction, the Genophage, the exiled Quarians) you think they would have taken a much more extreme stance after the Geth launched an attack upon the heart of Citadel space itself.

Oh well, I guess there is no such thing as a useful politician.

[Han Shot First]

Barquiel wrote...

They refused to send aid to Earth because any counter-offensive at the beginning of the war would have concluded with a disastrous defeat. The codex entry for Udina's coup made this pretty clear...

Persistent rumors suggest that Udina might have been a high-functioning victim of Reaper indoctrination. His actions played right into the Reapers' plans: even if the coup failed, it would damage Citadel governance. If it succeeded, his plan to retake Earth would likely have turned into a military blunder that Council forces could ill afford.

But even if the council was to say "All asari/salarian/turian forces, go die on Earth!" the matriarchs/dalatrass/primarch would have simply overruled them (and had roles been reversed and Thessia or Sur'kesh were invaded first the alliance wouldn't have responded any different, as the war room guards point out). The Asari helped to evacuate some human colonies while the turians had their own problems on Palavan, but sending the united fleets of the Alliance, Turians, Asari and everyone else to Earth never made any sense strategically, at least not until the citadel was moved there.

Exactly.

If Thessia or Palaven had been attacked first the Alliance would have acted no different.

Any counter-offensive at that stage in the war would have ended in a disastrous defeat, and would have only sped the annihilation of galactic civilization. The call for immediate military aid to Earth was an emotional one, rather than a rational one.

[jamesp81]

Obadiah wrote...

We saw how the Council reacted to the Reaper invasion in Mass Effect 3 - each refused to send aid to Earth, then began shoring up their own defenses while Earth took the brunt of the post-Batarian invasion.

However, before this Reaper invasion, a millenia ago the Council had already waged a 300 year war with the Rachni, and a 100 year war with the Krogan. Do you think they behaved the same way at the start of previous wars, and only united when they were all under threat/attack?

To be fair, the Turians got hit almost as fast Earth and had their hands full.  The Asari and the Salarians don't have an excuse, however.

I imagine they're like any other assemblage of sovereign nations.  The only way you will ever get them to cooperate at that level is if they believe they're all about to die.  Horribly.

[Han Shot First]

jamesp81 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

We saw how the Council reacted to the Reaper invasion in Mass Effect 3 - each refused to send aid to Earth, then began shoring up their own defenses while Earth took the brunt of the post-Batarian invasion.

However, before this Reaper invasion, a millenia ago the Council had already waged a 300 year war with the Rachni, and a 100 year war with the Krogan. Do you think they behaved the same way at the start of previous wars, and only united when they were all under threat/attack?

To be fair, the Turians got hit almost as fast Earth and had their hands full.  The Asari and the Salarians don't have an excuse, however.

I imagine they're like any other assemblage of sovereign nations.  The only way you will ever get them to cooperate at that level is if they believe they're all about to die.  Horribly.

The Asari and the Salarians had an excellent excuse. The demand that they immediately supply fleets to retake Earth was a terrible idea, doomed to failure. Udina and Shepard were giving way to raw emotion and not logic. If I can go Godwin for a minute, it would be like Free French demanding that Britain immediately reinvade France in June or July of 1940. A bad plan is no plan at all.

That being said the Salarians are worthy of criticism for having their military support be linked to the Genophage decision, but that doesn't occur until later in the game. The decision not to send fleets immediately after Mars was a sound one.

[Obadiah]

But, I don't think we asked them to invade Earth did we? We asked them to assist Hackett in the Crucible plan and work together with what was left of the Alliance guerilla fighting the Reapers in positions where they were weaker, not on Earth but in other systems.

Shepard's petition was something like, "send asssistance to/for Earth. We have plan - Crucible." Then as he got allies, it was all for Crucible assault.

[Barquiel]

Obadiah wrote...

But, I don't think we asked them to invade Earth did we? We asked them to assist Hackett in the Crucible plan and work together with what was left of the Alliance guerilla fighting the Reapers in positions where they were weaker, not on Earth but in other systems.

Shepard's petition was something like, "send asssistance to/for Earth. We have plan - Crucible." Then as he got allies, it was all for Crucible assault.

Udina insisted on a full assault on the reapers at the time they went before the Council (Tevos: If we lend you our strenght to help Earth our own worlds will fall. Valern: And so we should just follow you to Earth?). And remember Shepards speech to Primarch Victus about how they need the turian fleets to help Earth while Palaven is burning in the background? As for the crucible, I partially agree. But keep in mind that we don't know what it is or what it does (but it is described it as a colossal undertaking). I mean, that's our plan...

- Let's build the Crucible (what ever it is)
- We build the largest fleet/army in galactic history
- We jump the fleet/ground forces and the crucible into Sol system (why Sol?)
- Something exciting happens...
- Win!

One could argue that their scepticism is at least somewhat understandable

[Artifex_Imperius]

StreetMagic wrote...

I think their skepticism is very understandable in ME3. The Crucible is a terrible idea, at first glance.

But by that point, I got to do my routine. Hang up on them, calling them idiots. Just to keep up appearances.

Not that the crucible is a terrible idea but shepard is terrible at explaining things. ever since me1 he sounded like a nut job when talking to the council.