1765 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

Then the Reapers are slowed down. Don't know what I'd do then. It slows them down to start again, yeah, but it still leaves the problem of civilians and refugees to be taken. Even if they do distract the Reapers, they're going to catch up to them eventually.

They're slowed down. That's the entire point. It gives you more time to finish the crucible with fewer casualties than you get by zapping colonies and speeding up the Reapers' timetable. If that means they make more husks, what does it matter? You blow them up before they can be deployed at the next planet. The people on the harvested planet die horribly, yes - but it ultimately means that fewer people, fewer planets, die in the time it takes to finish the Crucible.

It's appalling that it comes down to that, but yes - I have to side with Javik here. If time is what we need, it's better to leave these worlds to be harvested.

As I've said, the game is kinda clear on who the hero of the story is and it being a power fantasy. For the other choices, really the Catalyst makes it semi-clear that only Shepard can activate them. I'm inclined to believe it would only manifest itself to Shepard. Without Shepard, the galaxy is lost. Hackett can try and fight, but he's not going to win. I disagree with the notion of anyone else being able to fight the war and win. It really is just Shepard who can do it. Shepard is intrinsically important to the war effort. It's a power fantasy. Why shouldn't he be?

I don't see us seeing eye to eye on this, so I won't pursue it further. All the same, even if we were to assume glowbrat would only answer to Shepard (for which there is no proof) Shepard has no way of knowing it, thus it cannot be used as an argument for his singular importance to the war effort prior to that point.

I don't call it betraying allies. I call it sacrificing them to the cause. But yes, I'm more than willing to throw my allies under the bus if it serves my purpose of stopping the Reapers. If it costs their lives to achieve the goal of stopping the Reapers, then yes I'd do it. I've never understood why people are so big on that. The mission comes first. It always comes first, be I the only survivor. No cost is too great, no sacrifice to high. But I do believe in utility. I'm not going to carelessly throw away allies over a Salarian heating clutch.

As a Destroyer, I'd be a hypocrite to say I'm not willing to do so. My goal is to simply minimize these sacrifices as much as possible without compromising the mission.

It doesn't really matter what you call it in the end. If they perceive it as a betrayal, it will come back to bite you in the ass.

He'd freak out, and I'd probably be forced to snap his neck. Then EDI would probably kill me, and the colony would be lost anyway, along with the one chance at destroying or stopping the Reapers. Or I'd shut down EDI and get on with things. Or, even more likely, I'd talk down Joker when he freaks out.

Realistically, I wouldn't go to Tiptree though.

Any cause to believe you'd get a different reaction out of any other soldier ordered to pre-emptively destroy a civilian population?

I'd be willing to do it on absolute lost-cause worlds if some capital ships could be taken with them (Miracle of Palaven), weighed against the cost of speeding them on to attack other worlds, but it's a waste of our limited ammunition and a catalyst for mutiny to do so anywhere else.

[AlanC9]

If I'm being completely honest, I intensely dislike the entire mission from start to finish. When I play it, I just space bar through the whole thing as quickly as possible. But that's a whole other rant I don't know if I should repeat here. I was mostly just trying to bring levity to what was otherwise a very serious discussion.

If you really don't like the mission, why not skip it?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

They're slowed down. That's the entire point. It gives you more time to finish the crucible with fewer casualties than you get by zapping colonies and speeding up the Reapers' timetable. If that means they make more husks, what does it matter? You blow them up before they can be deployed at the next planet. The people on the harvested planet die horribly, yes - but it ultimately means that fewer people, fewer planets, die in the time it takes to finish the Crucible.

It's appalling that it comes down to that, but yes - I have to side with Javik here. If time is what we need, it's better to leave these worlds to be harvested.

I don't see us seeing eye to eye on this, so I won't pursue it further. All the same, even if we were to assume glowbrat would only answer to Shepard (for which there is no proof) Shepard has no way of knowing it, thus it cannot be used as an argument for his singular importance to the war effort prior to that point.

As a Destroyer, I'd be a hypocrite to say I'm not willing to do so. My goal is to simply minimize these sacrifices as much as possible without compromising the mission.

It doesn't really matter what you call it in the end. If they perceive it as a betrayal, it will come back to bite you in the ass.

Any cause to believe you'd get a different reaction out of any other soldier ordered to pre-emptively destroy a civilian population?

I'd be willing to do it on absolute lost-cause worlds if some capital ships could be taken with them (Miracle of Palaven), weighed against the cost of speeding them on to attack other worlds, but it's a waste of our limited ammunition and a catalyst for mutiny to do so anywhere else.

 

That's about the only argument I'd respect in that sense. The argument for time. That said, I'd also put the people in a hard to reach location, with some sort of insurance weapon to make sure they aren't used against me. I'm not necessarily appalled at it. I have respect for the Reapers for putting us in that position.

 

I think the game could have done more to instill how Shepard alone was the one who could end the Reapers. As I said, it points to how the series sets him up, and the player up, in a power fantasy. It is one, and I'd ride it into the core of a singularity. 

 

For me, I don't have a moral qualm about it. I'm a destroyer too. I'm not really interested in minimizing casualties as much as maximizing results. That's not to say that they're mutually exclusive, but if I had the choice between the two, I'd go with maximizing results every single time.

 

Nah, I think I'll be alright. Besides, and this goes back to the power fantasy ideal. No matter how much it bits me in the ass, it's gonna hurt so much more for them. In fact, it's a **** sandwich for all of them, and they're all gonna have to take a bite.

 

Maybe. If I explained the utility of the situation to them, I'd hope they'd be willing to listen to their idol and hero. If not, it's their loss. I wouldn't call it a waste of ammunition. It's practically endless. You don't even need a nuclear charge. They can mutiny against me if they wish. It's their funeral. What do you do with weak soldiers anyway? I really wish they taught people in Basic these days like they used too. They drilled out the humanity in you, and turned you into a bona fide killer.

 

I've never understood why people are so unwilling to get going when the going gets tough. They always act like they've intrinsically lost something. Maybe I did in Afghanistan. All in all, I'm glad I did lose whatever it was that mentally held me back. I think a lot of people are terrified of that. I find it... liberating.

[DeinonSlayer]

Uh... just to get a bead on what you're trying to say, how do you "maximize results" beyond high-EMS Destroy? Seems to me the goal is to stop the Reapers with the galaxy left as intact (and stable) as possible in the aftermath; meaning (preferably) fewer extinctions, less nuking out own colonies and more effort poured into finishing the one thing that'll stop them as quickly as it can feasibly be done.

Are "maximized results" independent of what you manage to save at the end of it? I've stated my goals; what, exactly, are yours?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Uh... just to get a bead on what you're trying to say, how do you "maximize results" beyond high-EMS Destroy? Seems to me the goal is to stop the Reapers with the galaxy left as intact as possible in the aftermath; meaning fewer extinctions, less nuking out own colonies and more effort poured into finishing the one thing that'll stop them as quickly as it can feasibly be done.

Are "maximized results" independent of what you manage to save at the end of it? I've stated my goals; what, exactly, are yours?

 

Set the stage for what I want the galaxy to be in the future. Time to disappear into the shadows and control the galaxy in a way that suits my interest.

[DeinonSlayer]

Set the stage for what I want the galaxy to be in the future. Time to disappear into the shadows and control the galaxy in a way that suits my interest.

And if Shepard dies, or efforts to craft the galaxy in his image ultimately damage the Crucible effort to the point that it fails?

If Shepard dies, his "interests" cease to matter. Sounds like a clear-cut case of the corruption of absolute power to me.

I've stated earlier that I see the return of the Quarians to Rannoch as one of my canon Shepard's personal goals, but if Destroy killed them all by targeting their cybernetics, he'd still do it - even though it'd leave him suicidal. His interests are ultimately subordinated to those of the galaxy. You, on the other hand, said you'd burn the galaxy for Miranda.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

And if Shepard dies, or efforts to craft the galaxy in his image ultimately damage the Crucible effort to the point that it fails?

If Shepard dies, his "interests" cease to matter. Sounds like a clear-cut case of the corruption of absolute power to me.

 

Well, he won't die, and he won't fail. I don't believe in the corruption of power, or those who wield it. Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. Absolute power defines what is and what isn't corrupt. Absolute power allows one to change the rules of the game to whatever they want them to be. I'm not interested in being a god who's worshipped and loved, or a heroic figurehead to be drooled over and admired. I'd like to have control, I'd like to have the reigns. For once, I'd like to see the galaxy going somewhere. And I'm going to make it go somewhere.

[themikefest]

Are "maximized results" independent of what you manage to save at the end of it? I've stated my goals; what, exactly, are yours?

For my femshep is once the reapers are destroyed she will do what she can to get humanity to be #1. Once that is achieved she will find a nice quiet place and relax

[DeinonSlayer]

I guess therein lies the difference. I see my Shepard as more of a "get the job done and go home" kind of guy, wary of the power granted by his title and disinterested in celebrity.

I never recorded any advertisements on the Citadel.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I guess therein lies the difference. I see my Shepard as more of a "get the job done and go home" kind of guy, wary of the power granted by his title and disinterested in celebrity.

I never recorded any advertisements on the Citadel.

 

I'm disinterested in celebrity, but power is a means to an end for me. The more I have, the more of my end I can achieve. It's a tool.

 

Hero, villain, savior, conqueror, liberator, murderer. My Shepard is all of these things. And he's above and beyond the judgement and morality of the lesser people of the galaxy. I suppose it's time I said I believe in the ubermensch. Or, more specifically, I have my own ideal of it (basically what I've been talking about over the last 5+ pages). Really, there are only a handful of people who's opinions he cares about. Miranda is of course first and foremost. He's still human as well, and he's a pretty generous and relatively decent guy when he's not on the clock. It's part of his dynamic. As Aria says, the more you know about him, the less you understand him. 

[CrutchCricket]

There's no distinction in my eyes between inaction and inability in my opinion. That's how I view things. If they can't or won't contribute, then I don't care about them beyond ensuring that they aren't used against me. What do you suggest I do with them instead? No matter what they do, everything of value they possess is a resource that isn't going towards the fight. Anything they have of worth is something that isn't going towards the battle. Every pre-fab building they have is part of a ship, or armor, or a gun that isn't being used against the Reapers. What I'm suggesting is that we move as close to total war as is physically possible for organics. Any resource not going towards the war effort is a wasted resource.

 
Total war is impossible, not only because people can't do it, but because they won't. I thought a leader is supposed to know what his people can and can't do. And what they can't do is fight Reapers 100% of the time and standby while you execute anyone who can't. You can have your opinion. My opinion is that if you follow your reasoning to the letter, your efforts will be just as destructive to the war effort as the Reapers themselves.
 

Ilos wasn't the Reapers mistake, no. But they do know that they missed a spot last time now, and it has caused them a lot of inconvenience and trouble. I can be sure that they aren't going to allow the same thing to happen again in this cycle or all coming cycles. Running is possible; Leviathan was able to do it, but then again, what would be the point? Would I have a sizable population with me to reconstruct our civilization? Not everyone who runs is found by the Reapers. However, the number that we know that escapes is very limited. It's like Alcatraz: only a handful of people ever escaped from it (and even then, there's no proof they actually survived their escape to freedom since they were never found). I'm not very content with those odds of running.

 
I'll bet it wasn't the first time, either. They'll likely take greater precautions (assuming they are capable of adapting, but with the holokid you never know) but that still won't make them infallible. As to the other questions, there's always a possibility. The real threat isn't random Reaper discovery but indoctrinated agents blowing the whistle. You can't do anything about the Reapers. You can take steps to eliminate any indoctrinated people on your staff.

 

And if there's one species who can definitely pull it off, it's asari. A single asari surviving is enough to restart their whole race, not to mention the individuals themselves being capable of outlasting a cycle. A couple of cured krogan could probably do it too.
 

Then I'll simply say: Why not? Because it's evil? Unless there's another way that benefits me (I'll leave that to you to tell me), then what else am I to do? I'm not going to try the other ways because, I'll ask, what's the point? Why am I trying all these solutions if there's no benefit? Why don't I just kill them all and take that particular variable out of the problem? Being ruthless is about more than just being willing to try every option. Sometimes, it really is about going for the extremes first. I'm not calculating any other way that gives me benefit beyond emotional comfort. What way would there be in not starting with the most extreme method here? There are other ways, yes. And they don't get me what I want, so there's no point in wasting effort trying. Diplomacy won't work. Neither will sabotage. Hell, direct military action on a strategic level is barely holding the Reapers off. I'll start from the top if it gets me to the bottom faster. Again, I don't view Cerberus' actions as wasteful. I admit we aren't going to ever agree on this: I hold your ideal to be wasteful. I really do. You're wasting time and energy slowly ramping up the intensity of your actions. In my opinion, that's too slow. I need a solution now, and I need one that will solve the problem for me. Killing the civilians does that for me. Is it an ideal solution? No. I don't believe one exists. But it's the path of least resistance for now, and that's what I care about. I won't pretend it's efficient, but I can't tell you what is and what isn't in this case. So yes, I'll start with the why not if it serves my purpose. As we've all stated, this is something you and I aren't likely to agree with. I still don't see truly see your logic in this case, and I likely won't. You won't see mine either, and you likely won't. Another thing is that we both have different aims as well.

 
The idea is not to actually try every step as a prerequisite for the next (and you know me better than to think I would suggest parlaying with the Reapers), but to consider them in order. Or hell, to consider all of them in any order, apart from the ones that are self-evidently insufficient. And I haven't seen any evidence that you've ever done that. And benefit isn't the only side of the decision coin, loss or risk must also be considered. The "ideal" solution isn't one of happiness and chocolates for everyone, but merely one where benefit is maximized and loss/risk is minimized. Otherwise, **** it why don't we nuke every problem we come across? Problem solved, benefit achieved. But if losses are astronomical and unnecessarily so, then that is a loss. Ignoring the loss consideration isn't ruthless or pragmatic and is sure as hell isn't efficient. It's wasteful and downright crazy. Feel free to disagree. I doubt either us will budge on this.
 

Executionally, yes, it was a tremendous fail. Far be it from me to describe it otherwise, but yes, the game and BW wanted to depict it as I described. And I agree with their intent, if not their execution. Sanctuary had a solution. The game acknowledges it. Hackett himself even says that it's useful information. You can even express to Joker the very opinion I feel about it. Yes, I believe we were supposed to believe exactly that. And it failed executionally, but I'm going to agree with the intent there. On Leviathan and the enthrallment team: yeah, it does accomplish that with 100% less casualties.
 
And to me, I'm struggling to see how that's a good thing. Now what am I to do with all these civilians and refugees? I can make a few of them fight, and a few of them contribute in other ways. But what about the rest, the ones who can't or won't? I'm going to kill them. I'm not going to give them a chance. Any resource they might have or need is one less I have for my effort. That's unacceptable to me. Whatever they scrounge for or find of value is a wasted resource that isn't contributing. Hell, the only thing they'd have of worth is air and the clothes on their back (hell I might not even let them have that). Any food or water they find is food or water not going into the bellies of people contributing. For whatever reason, they can't be an asset, so I'm not going to let them be a burden. There aren't going to be refugees in my war, because I won't allow them to exist.

 
Execution aside, this is one of those many times Bioware wants something to go one way but are completely oblivious to the fact that the details argue the exact opposite. Since their intent includes an RGB "win" button, a holographic child and the complete ruination of everything we've held dear in this series I've taken the liberty of not giving a damn about their intent and drawing my own conclusions from the details.

 

Foolish and wasteful. Any resource they might've scrounged or created will now not be found or created at all and your war effort will be none the richer. It will instead take a heavy hit in morale, an even bigger hit in the cohesion of the leadership and you might find yourself taking a hit of your own in the form of a knife in your back or a shot in your skull.
 

I disagree with that. I believe the 'evil' people should be the ones running things. I think this is a fundamental difference between our mentalities, and not one that we can reconcile. I do believe in power for those who take it. Once they taken it, it's theirs to do as they wish. They have proven themselves to be better, hence why they have the power. To quote Warhammer 40K, "Only the insane have strength enough to prosper, only those that prosper truly judge who is sane." [/size]It's a lot like social darwinism to the extreme. Sufficiently powerful people don't care about the trust or approval of their followers. In the case of Mass Effect, Shepard is the 'evil guy' who is unleashed so to speak. He's in charge, and he's going to make things happen. And everyone's going to follow him whether they approve or not. If they don't, they die. The alternative is the Reapers. That's the choice that I, the evil man in power, am giving them. It's my way or the highway.

Yeah, that doesn't cut it. You say "evil" people should run things but then you only talk about power. Power does not make one evil. You can very much have an evil wuss. And are we forgetting one of the key lessons from the Sith? You can be as powerful as you like, if enough weaklings band together they will take you down. So maybe you should care about the trust and approval of your followers, or at least enough to fool them. Yes our perspectives are different. But not so different. I suspect you threw in that evil people running things line just to disagree with me. Because I think the powerful should rule as well. It is their place. And the place of "evil" people is to be used and controlled when necessary and shot in the back of the head when their use is done or the control is slipping.

 

As for Shepard, you're sadly mistaken. He can be killed. And the war can go on, and even be won. Because the thing with being a living symbol is the symbol can go on even after you've stopped living. If Shepard goes all fascist, you blow his brains out, space his body near a star, get another N7 of similar build on the Normandy, order him to wear a helmet at all times, install a Shepard VI in his suit so Shepard's voice comes out of it with your words, and set your propaganda machine to overload toting the hero of organics who is totally alive and not at all dead. For bonus points, call him Flim.

[DeinonSlayer]

As for Shepard, you're sadly mistaken. He can be killed. And the war can go on, and even be won. Because the thing with being a living symbol is the symbol can go on even after you've stopped living. If Shepard goes all fascist, you blow his brains out, space his body near a star, get another N7 of similar build on the Normandy, order him to wear a helmet at all times, install a Shepard VI in his suit so Shepard's voice comes out of it with your words, and set your propaganda machine to overload toting the hero of organics who is totally alive and not at all dead. For bonus points, call him Flim.

"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain. Gotham needs its true hero... that's what needs to happen. Because sometimes... the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."

*facepalm* Now I've done it. I've invoked Heroism™. Are you happy now?

[CrutchCricket]

I'm rather surprised David hasn't shown up to tell us how silly we're all being, misrepresent our arguments (even when there's a blue moon out and they don't totally contradict his nonsense) and attempt to educate us on the proper course of Heroism, characterization and what Bioware wants.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain. Gotham needs its true hero... that's what needs to happen. Because sometimes... the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."

*facepalm* Now I've done it. I've invoked Heroism™. Are you happy now?

 

The people don't deserve anything in my opinion. They're lucky that they're allowed to even live. I prefer the dark knight templar path, though less of a protector and more of an enforcer. Heroes and villains are meaningless to me. The only thing that matters is not betraying my goal. I have a goal. I will not deviate from it, no matter the obstacle be it a corrupt politician, a psychotic madman, a helpless old lady, or a hostage. 

 

I'd use my image as a tool to manipulate others into doing what I need them to do.

[DeinonSlayer]

I'm rather surprised David hasn't shown up to tell us how silly we're all being, misrepresent our arguments (even when there's a blue moon out and they don't totally contradict his nonsense) and attempt to educate us on the proper course of Heroism, characterization and what Bioware wants.

Maybe he ran out of scoff drops.

I'll save you the trouble of reacting to the above:

[DeinonSlayer]

The people don't deserve anything in my opinion. They're lucky that they're allowed to even live. I prefer the dark knight templar path, though less of a protector and more of an enforcer. Heroes and villains are meaningless to me. The only thing that matters is not betraying my goal. I have a goal. I will not deviate from it, no matter the obstacle be it a corrupt politician, a psychotic madman, a helpless old lady, or a hostage.

I'd use my image as a tool to manipulate others into doing what I need them to do.

That goal being the establishment of your own power base, the pursuit of your personal interests, above and beyond anything else. And you expect the entire galaxy to follow you, even though you've stated you're willing to burn them all for one Miranda Lawson who, if I have any kind of bead on her character, would willingly destroy herself to save those you'd sacrifice for her (admittedly, a great potential source of drama).

You say you admire and support Henry Lawson's work, and would see it continued, when she actively tried to warn people away.

*rereads further up the page* Just so I'm understanding, are you saying you believe corruption is whatever the already-powerful choose to define it as?

[Bob from Accounting]

It's interesting that, from what I've seen, people who romanced Miranda tend to dislike 'heroic' characters and supposedly 'idealistic' decisions, when her character exists in a very great part to support those two things.

 

Perhaps they're oblivious to it.

[Mcfly616]

Lol

[MassivelyEffective0730]

 
1)Total war is impossible, not only because people can't do it, but because they won't. I thought a leader is supposed to know what his people can and can't do. And what they can't do is fight Reapers 100% of the time and standby while you execute anyone who can't. You can have your opinion. My opinion is that if you follow your reasoning to the letter, your efforts will be just as destructive to the war effort as the Reapers themselves.
 

 
2)I'll bet it wasn't the first time, either. They'll likely take greater precautions (assuming they are capable of adapting, but with the holokid you never know) but that still won't make them infallible. As to the other questions, there's always a possibility. The real threat isn't random Reaper discovery but indoctrinated agents blowing the whistle. You can't do anything about the Reapers. You can take steps to eliminate any indoctrinated people on your staff.

 

 
3)The idea is not to actually try every step as a prerequisite for the next (and you know me better than to think I would suggest parlaying with the Reapers), but to consider them in order. Or hell, to consider all of them in any order, apart from the ones that are self-evidently insufficient. And I haven't seen any evidence that you've ever done that. And benefit isn't the only side of the decision coin, loss or risk must also be considered. The "ideal" solution isn't one of happiness and chocolates for everyone, but merely one where benefit is maximized and loss/risk is minimized. Otherwise, **** it why don't we nuke every problem we come across? Problem solved, benefit achieved. But if losses are astronomical and unnecessarily so, then that is a loss. Ignoring the loss consideration isn't ruthless or pragmatic and is sure as hell isn't efficient. It's wasteful and downright crazy. Feel free to disagree. I doubt either us will budge on this.
 

 
4)Execution aside, this is one of those many times Bioware wants something to go one way but are completely oblivious to the fact that the details argue the exact opposite. Since their intent includes an RGB "win" button, a holographic child and the complete ruination of everything we've held dear in this series I've taken the liberty of not giving a damn about their intent and drawing my own conclusions from the details.

 

Foolish and wasteful. Any resource they might've scrounged or created will now not be found or created at all and your war effort will be none the richer. It will instead take a heavy hit in morale, an even bigger hit in the cohesion of the leadership and you might find yourself taking a hit of your own in the form of a knife in your back or a shot in your skull.
 

5)Yeah, that doesn't cut it. You say "evil" people should run things but then you only talk about power. Power does not make one evil. You can very much have an evil wuss. And are we forgetting one of the key lessons from the Sith? You can be as powerful as you like, if enough weaklings band together they will take you down. So maybe you should care about the trust and approval of your followers, or at least enough to fool them. Yes our perspectives are different. But not so different. I suspect you threw in that evil people running things line just to disagree with me. Because I think the powerful should rule as well. It is their place. And the place of "evil" people is to be used and controlled when necessary and shot in the back of the head when their use is done or the control is slipping.

 

6)As for Shepard, you're sadly mistaken. He can be killed. And the war can go on, and even be won. Because the thing with being a living symbol is the symbol can go on even after you've stopped living. If Shepard goes all fascist, you blow his brains out, space his body near a star, get another N7 of similar build on the Normandy, order him to wear a helmet at all times, install a Shepard VI in his suit so Shepard's voice comes out of it with your words, and set your propaganda machine to overload toting the hero of organics who is totally alive and not at all dead. For bonus points, call him Flim.

 

This is getting rather long and tedious to keep answering too. The answers are getting too long to type, and I imagine it's taking us well over a half hour to make our responses. I'm going to slim it down. Suffice to say for everything though, I think we're not going to budge on any issue as you say. We've hit a snag in our reasoning and it's not the first time. We want a lot of the same things, but we want to get there differently for different reasons. To make an analogy: In Casino Royale, Bond asks M about how to cap some guy: You'd be the one looking for the clean kill, I'd be the one looking to send a message. You want power to use in total secrecy to make things you want without shaking things up, I want people to know who's in charge. 

 

1) Disagree. I didn't say 100% Total War, I said as close to it as organically possible. People are weak. I'm their leader, and I know that they're weak. It's what the Reapers use against them, their morality, their compassion, and their humanity. Suffice to say, I think dropping it is for the best. Otherwise, there's no point fighting them, since we aren't collectively willing to be the monster.

 

2) Agree, but I'll also say that there isn't going to be a foolproof method of stopping Reaper indoctrination. I think running is more trouble than it's worth. I think I'd take my chance of building the Crucible and making my own stab at power once its finished.

 

3) Disagree. I think we have a different ideal of what we hold as the ideal benefit. We aren't going to budge on this as you say: It depends on how we view the cost and what we're trying to accomplish with it. My solution isn't beneficial for your ideal, just as yours isn't beneficial to my ideal.

 

4) I think we're going to disagree on a lot of that. I can respect your view, since I do it too for the ending, but I draw my own conclusions as well from the data. I think we also have a different ideal as to what we view each thing that BW intended. I know you don't mean it, but you come across as dismissive towards everything BW did when it was only over certain things that you disagreed with the handling of. I agree with you, but I also think differently about things you probably would maintain, and you think differently about things I would maintain. For instance, I'd change Cerberus portrayal to be more competent and sympathetic, whereas you'd keep them as inept and lolevil. You'd change Sanctuary to be more lolworthy, while I'd keep it as a place where things were done that were legitimate game-changers against the Reapers (or at least gave us distinct advantages for the rest of the war). We aren't going to budge on this. The second paragraph goes back to seeing the people of the galaxy as weak. I think we'd disagree on that as well. I want my people to accept that there is no hope. That they have nothing to live for. It's a philosophical debate for Soldiers, famously propagated by Lieutenant Colonel Ronald Spiers: Who fights harder, the people with something to fight for, or the people with nothing to lose? It's a tough answer, and it is dependent on one's worldview. I personally hold that the person that accepts that they're already dead loses all fear and inhibition and becomes a deadlier soldier. There's cases where both are right, and there's cases where both failed miserably. 

 

5) I'll say one thing first: Evil is relative in my opinion. I'm sure you'd agree with that. I just wanted to get it out of the way. Next, I'll agree, power does not make one evil. The person who has the power gets to define what is evil and what is not. That's something else I think we'd agree on. That said, I disagree with that ideal of that comparison. This isn't Star Wars: I don't have to worry about force-users. I don't have the force myself, but I'd rather we all be unpowered than all empowered. I think we could keep things a bit more fair there (at least for me anyway, and that's all that matters). As far as trust and approval goes, what about my own? I can't trust or approve of them. I can manipulate them, but it's a two way street. As a leader, I have to know if my people are up for the job. They can love me and follow me into hell itself, but if they can't back me up when I need them, then it's **** all. I can't rely on them to stand, only to die. And I have to let them know what I expect from them, and what I plan for them to do. It's my cost: do I want their trust and approval, or do I want their obedience and results? For what I'm asking obedience for, mutually exclusive doesn't begin to cover it. If they're too weak to do it, then they're too weak to win. And that's a no-no for me, because I want to win, and I want to survive. I disagree about the 'evil' people. I don't view them as being the ones who should be controlled or disposed of. I think we disagree on what our definition of evil is.

 

6) I don't think I am mistaken. That's not to say you are, but we view Shepard differently. Chalk this up to number 4, but I'm sure BW intended Shepard to be the guy who makes the difference. He's not a cog in the machine, or even the most important part of the machine, but he is the machine. Without the various cogs, he can't function, and without him, the cogs are just various pieces of the engine, none of which are greater than their parts. He's more than a symbol or an icon. He's the guy who will win you the war. He is the guy who makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts. And I think we're going to disagree here with BW's intent. And even if my Shepard goes all fascist and authoritarian, he will still be in charge because of his need. Let the galaxy think he's dead post-war. You know my scenario. For the war itself, he's god-almighty. I think any attempt to fight or win without Shepard is doomed to absolute failure. And I think it should be that way too. You really can't say otherwise, since you never play as anyone but Shepard, and only Shepard ever reaches that threshold. As I said, we're never going to agree on that. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

That goal being the establishment of your own power base, the pursuit of your personal interests, above and beyond anything else. And you expect the entire galaxy to follow you, even though you've stated you're willing to burn them all for one Miranda Lawson who, if I have any kind of bead on her character, would willingly destroy herself to save those you'd sacrifice for her (admittedly, a great potential source of drama).

You say you admire and support Henry Lawson's work, and would see it continued, when she actively tried to warn people away.

*rereads further up the page* Just so I'm understanding, are you saying you believe corruption is whatever the already-powerful choose to define it as?

 

If that was the case and Miranda did do that... Simply put, it wouldn't end well for the galaxy. All I can say is... Killionare x 5000000 XTREME! 

 

I don't admire Henry Lawson, or really his work or motivation. I think he's a crapsack man/worm even by my standards, though I admire what Cerberus was trying to achieve there, if not Lawson himself.

 

Yes, indeed. As is sanity. As is morality. As is reality.

[KaiserShep]

On Leviathan and the enthrallment team: yeah, it does accomplish that with 100% less casualties.

 

And to me, I'm struggling to see how that's a good thing. Now what am I to do with all these civilians and refugees? I can make a few of them fight, and a few of them contribute in other ways. But what about the rest, the ones who can't or won't? I'm going to kill them. I'm not going to give them a chance. Any resource they might have or need is one less I have for my effort. That's unacceptable to me.

 

Regarding the bolded question, the answer is simple: You do nothing.

 

I understand that this is a power fantasy, but even a power fantasy must, at some point, abide by a certain set of rules. That is to say, Shepard has no more say over what happens to refugees as a whole than he does successfully petitioning that Earth be renamed Bob. Even if one of the leaders in the war against the reapers wants to off civilians because they "get in the way" or are considered leeches of valuable resources, other people, namely soldiers and their own commanding officers, just won't stand for it, and really, why would they? The likelihood of convincing most people that refugees should be executed to preemptively stave off the exhaustion of resources is about as good as getting Tommy Wiseau an Oscar for The Room. It just won't happen. A leader isn't going to stay a leader for very long if everyone thinks you're a psychopath who would burn the galaxy for sake of personal gain. They'll eventually ride you out on a rail, and that's if they don't shoot you in the back first.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I understand that this is a power fantasy, but even a power fantasy must, at some point, abide by a certain set of rules. That is to say, Shepard has no more say over what happens to refugees as a whole than he does successfully petitioning that Earth be renamed Bob. Even if one of the leaders in the war against the reapers wants to off civilians because they "get in the way" or are considered leeches of valuable resources, other people, namely soldiers and their own commanding officers, just won't stand for it, and really, why would they? The likelihood of convincing most people that refugees should be executed to preemptively stave off the exhaustion of resources is about as good as getting Tommy Wiseau an Oscar for The Room. It just won't happen. A leader isn't going to stay a leader for very long if everyone thinks you're a psychopath who would burn the galaxy for sake of personal gain. They'll eventually ride you out on a rail, and that's if they don't shoot you in the back first.

 

Ok then. I'd like to hear their solutions for the Reapers. What they'd do to stop it, without my help.

 

Either they accept the sociopath willing to burn the galaxy for his own interests and goals, or they accept burning under the Reapers. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It's interesting that, from what I've seen, people who romanced Miranda tend to dislike 'heroic' characters and supposedly 'idealistic' decisions, when her character exists in a very great part to support those two things.

 

Perhaps they're oblivious to it.

 

I doubt it. What's idealistic and heroic David? I don't think Miranda is quite what you believe she is in that regard. I have my own sense of heroism and idealism, completely different from yours. 

[DeinonSlayer]

Ok then. I'd like to hear their solutions for the Reapers. What they'd do to stop it, without my help.

Either they accept the sociopath willing to burn the galaxy for his own interests and goals, or they accept burning under the Reapers.

Or they find someone else to appoint as ambassador plenipotentiary and continue building the Crucible as they were already doing without said ambassador's direct assistance while the deposed sociopath scoffs from a distance.

They could bring in an actual trained diplomat to ride shotgun while someone else captains the Normandy, and yet another person leads the ground team. None of this Star Trek crap.

Also re: corruption, the country you live in wouldn't exist today if its founders left the definition of the word to King George.

[KaiserShep]

Ok then. I'd like to hear their solutions for the Reapers. What they'd do to stop it, without my help.

 

Either they accept the sociopath willing to burn the galaxy for his own interests and goals, or they accept burning under the Reapers. 

 

Never underestimate people's willingness to take their chances. If the sociopath's methods are extreme enough, that sociopath will ultimately be rejected. The point is that people need a reason to trust the person that is supposed to be helping them win the war, and from their perspective, what benefits one person is not enough.