402 réponses à ce sujet

[Remix-General Aetius]

Neither, I'd create my own faction. After "Arrival" I'd tell Hackett & Illusive Man to kiss my back cheeks, and terrorize the galaxy with MY Normandy and MY team.

[DeinonSlayer]

Lawful:
*angry, heavily armed mob approaches the rangers in Mogadishu*
"Why aren't we shooting?"
"Rules of engagement say we don't fire until we're fired upon-" *bullet cracks overhead* "NOW THEY'RE SHOOTING AT US! OPEN FI-"
(I know that's just the movie, the explanation being there for the benefit of civilians, but still, if that shot were a little lower they'd already be f***ed by the time they permit themselves to react)

Good:
*Balak tries to destroy a colony*
*Shepard lets Balak escape to save three hostages*
*Balak destroys a different colony*

It's not always that clear-cut, but still.

[Mrs_Stick]

Lawful:
*angry, heavily armed mob approaches the rangers in Mogadishu*
"Why aren't we shooting?"
"Rules of engagement say we don't fire until we're fired upon-" *bullet cracks overhead* "NOW THEY'RE SHOOTING AT US! OPEN FI-"
(I know that's just the movie, the explanation being there for the benefit of civilians, but still, if that shot were a little lower they'd already be f***ed by the time they permit themselves to react)
Good:
*Balak tries to destroy a colony*
*Shepard lets Balak escape to save three hostages*
*Balak destroys a different colony*
It's not always that clear-cut, but still.

Sometimes its better to shot first and ask questions later.

[Farangbaa]

That's too selfish to be good by the alignment chart measure. That's more chaotic neutral.

 

Nah, neutral evil.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Nah, neutral evil.

 

That's not neutral evil. Neutral evil is active sociopathy, and arguably the most dangerous (and interesting) of the alignments, along with chaotic neutral and true neutral.

[Ryriena]

I guess, I would consider myself lawfully Chaotic in my personality since I has maxed my paragon out with 3 bars full of renegade. She's repenting for her gang days .

[Farangbaa]

That's not neutral evil. Neutral evil is active sociopathy, and arguably the most dangerous (and interesting) of the alignments, along with chaotic neutral and true neutral.

 

You're probably right. To be honest though, in this alignment system, some are basically the same with only a different 'moral compass'. Chaotic Good and Neutral Evil is pretty much the same in my opinion, but the first is usually seen by others as 'good', and the latter as 'evil'. Both alignments do what they want when they want it.

[Ryriena]

You're probably right. To be honest though, in this alignment system, some are basically the same with only a different 'moral compass'. Chaotic Good and Neutral Evil is pretty much the same in my opinion, but the first is usually seen by others as 'good', and the latter as 'evil'. Both alignments do what they want when they want it.

Paragon Shepard's left Zaeed to burn by walking from him as he calling her or his name. Yes they both do what they need to do for their mission but they just find other ways to do that.

[AlexMBrennan]

Neither, I'd create my own faction. After "Arrival" I'd tell Hackett & Illusive Man to kiss my back cheeks, and terrorize the galaxy with MY Normandy and MY team.

And the US Navy got started when Bob didn't feel like serving in the Army and started is own faction.

Also, I'd imagine that future navies might still court-martial deserting captains for stealing ships and all that - good luck being a pirate on some baterian moon because you sure can't show your face in any port the Alliance or Cerberus might frequent.

[DeinonSlayer]

And the US Navy got started when Bob didn't feel like serving in the Army and started is own faction.
Also, I'd imagine that future navies might still court-martial deserting captains for stealing ships and all that - good luck being a pirate on some baterian moon because you sure can't show your face in any port the Alliance or Cerberus might frequent.

"See this gun? This is YOUR gun!"

[CrutchCricket]

I'm thinking that you weren't putting a better definition to your example than right then and there. You never stated that he wasn't able to do anything about stopping me and would begrudgingly follow any and all orders I gave no matter his opinion or feelings. If that were the case, then nothing would be wrong with it according to my philosophy. That wasn't how you described said operative. Now that you've clarified it, then really, there's nothing that's any different.

 

Let's put it this way; I take said weakness that you see and make it a strength. They are an army of me: But only one of them wants power for himself. That would be me. Everyone else wants power for me. To give you an example, the Doctor Who Episode 'The End of Time', the Master is able to turn every human on the planet into him. And you know what happens? Perfect harmony between all of them. They, being him, perfectly understand and see his views and ambitions, while recognizing the original Master as their supreme will and commander. They want the Master to be powerful, and with him, he is the most powerful (all while simultaneously being him). It really won't tear itself apart within a day. They don't need leashes. They're me. They know exactly what I want and what motivates them and anything they get is what I get and vice versa. It's like the Reapers. Many minds come together as one being, one entity, comprised of thousands, millions, possibly even billions of parts. The Reapers were like that as well, and they never succumbed to infighting or self-destruction. Good luck trying to fight that.

 

I didn't have to define it like that. You're the one who keeps insisting he can't be defeated. I had assumed that was continually implied.

 

You asked why I'm not taking your idea seriously anymore and believe you're just ****** with us. I'll answer that now. It's because every time this discussion starts up, it inevitably starts as a shock-value response from you on a more general topic only tangentially related. Case in point, this thread which merely asked which organization you'd prefer from a training/resources perspective.  We all go off into headcanon when answering these hypotheticals but lately all you go back to is this idea. Before you might've talked about what your new Cerberus would do or Shepard's retirement plan or what the galaxy would and would not know about him. But lately all you do when the discussion does lean that way is go "rawr look at what my Shepard will do he'll burn your civilians because they're inconvenient, he's a god, you should be happy when he kills you, no one is safe, nothing is sacred, behold how non-existent the fucks I give about your morality are".

 

It also seems to be progressive. In the beginning, you started with  "Cerberus was fine I don't see what the big deal about experimenting on (kids/aliens/homeless etc) is" and have since gotten to "I will do that regularly if it suits me" all the way to "I am a god". Now I don't judge your views or the bluntness and frequency they are presented in. But when you put it all together it just seems like attention-grabbing. I could be wrong. But that is a distinct impression that only gets stronger with every cycle.

 

Another thing that contributes (which is admittedly new this time around) is the increasing frequency of you simply denying a gap or flaw in your sequence of events. Twice now I've brought up things that would be reasonably expected to happen to your regime if its oponents didn't have the idiot ball and your only response is "nope, that won't happen". One was the rebellion/conspiracy angle and the other is lust for power in your clones/drones just now. In both cases you haven't really engaged the issue you simply handwaved it away. To me at least, that's like the kid in the playground shouting he has "everythingproof armor" and nope, your Infinity +1 sword totally didn't get through that. That and the whole "I am/will be a god" thing finally tipped me into the belief that this has been one giant joke.

 

Well whatever your intent, troll or serious I commend you for the resulting responses. Don't know if I'll continue any serious engagement myself but I am definitely entertained.

 

 Massive sees Shepard as irreplaceable, utterly vital, and with more plot armor than Liara - to the extent that his actions are geared towards shaping a galaxy he intends to rule from the shadows (Guess he went with "Violence is a means to an end: power is that end" talking to Morinth). My Shepard is more of a get-the-job-done-and-go-home kind of guy with no such post-war aspirations.

 

Except that Shepard really isn't and this is perhaps the original sin of Massively's view. Shepard is special only in our minds as the protagonist of the story. Within the MEU however, he's just a dude that's really good at killing and inspiring people. And while by ME3 he may have importance in symbolism beyond the average leader symbolism is a fickle ****** in that the symbol part is quite easily and rapidly removed from the reality of the man himself. The average joe civilian's view of "The Shepard" has almost nothing to do with the character we play. The Shepard is just a face, an image. And if the man currently wearing it is no longer suitable, well he's replaceable. And hell, he can be taken down from the other side as well. If the Reapers were so inclined they could crush "the Shepard" in a heartbeat. Indoctrination would make for a hell of a propaganda boost.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I didn't have to define it like that. You're the one who keeps insisting he can't be defeated. I had assumed that was continually implied.

 

You asked why I'm not taking your idea seriously anymore and believe you're just ****** with us. I'll answer that now. It's because every time this discussion starts up, it inevitably starts as a shock-value response from you on a more general topic only tangentially related. Case in point, this thread which merely asked which organization you'd prefer from a training/resources perspective.  We all go off into headcanon when answering these hypotheticals but lately all you go back to is this idea. Before you might've talked about what your new Cerberus would do or Shepard's retirement plan or what the galaxy would and would not know about him. But lately all you do when the discussion does lean that way is go "rawr look at what my Shepard will do he'll burn your civilians because they're inconvenient, he's a god, you should be happy when he kills you, no one is safe, nothing is sacred, behold how non-existent the fucks I give about your morality are".

 

It also seems to be progressive. In the beginning, you started with  "Cerberus was fine I don't see what the big deal about experimenting on (kids/aliens/homeless etc) is" and have since gotten to "I will do that regularly if it suits me" all the way to "I am a god". Now I don't judge your views or the bluntness and frequency they are presented in. But when you put it all together it just seems like attention-grabbing. I could be wrong. But that is a distinct impression that only gets stronger with every cycle.

 

Another thing that contributes (which is admittedly new this time around) is the increasing frequency of you simply denying a gap or flaw in your sequence of events. Twice now I've brought up things that would be reasonably expected to happen to your regime if its oponents didn't have the idiot ball and your only response is "nope, that won't happen". One was the rebellion/conspiracy angle and the other is lust for power in your clones/drones just now. In both cases you haven't really engaged the issue you simply handwaved it away. To me at least, that's like the kid in the playground shouting he has "everythingproof armor" and nope, your Infinity +1 sword totally didn't get through that. That and the whole "I am/will be a god" thing finally tipped me into the belief that this has been one giant joke.

 

Well whatever your intent, troll or serious I commend you for the resulting responses. Don't know if I'll continue any serious engagement myself but I am definitely entertained.

 

 

Except that Shepard really isn't and this is perhaps the original sin of Massively's view. Shepard is special only in our minds as the protagonist of the story. Within the MEU however, he's just a dude that's really good at killing and inspiring people. And while by ME3 he may have importance in symbolism beyond the average leader symbolism is a fickle ****** in that the symbol part is quite easily and rapidly removed from the reality of the man himself. The average joe civilian's view of "The Shepard" has almost nothing to do with the character we play. The Shepard is just a face, an image. And if the man currently wearing it is no longer suitable, well he's replaceable. And hell, he can be taken down from the other side as well. If the Reapers were so inclined they could crush "the Shepard" in a heartbeat. Indoctrination would make for a hell of a propaganda boost.

 

Well a good troll is never one to admit to trolling. But I'm not trolling of course. That said, in the realm of possibility in the game, it is certainly possible to make Shepard into a physical god. Narcissism at it's peak one might say. But then another might say that narcissism is underrated, especially in said power-fantasy where you can be... god. Consider it both dead serious and tongue-in-cheek. That's the purpose. It's a fan ******. I'm both affirming it's validity and smashing its credibility in one fell swoop. 

 

The two issues you have a problem with being a rebellion/conspiracy angle is that it won't work. You don't like handwaives. What would you clarify as a handwaive? Something not realistic? If that were the case, I'd have to call you out on your mystery organization. As for the clone/drone lust for power? That's not really a handwaive. You're putting that in there when I said it wasn't in there. Again, it's a ******.

 

In universe, I'd still disagree. Yes, I fully believe that in universe, Shepard is the only being who can beat the Reapers. It goes beyond an image. Many of the great many powerful figures in the series all acknowledge Shepard's implicit value and capability as something that even the Reapers fear. They don't just fear 'The Shepard'. They fear the man himself. The game backs it up. It's a power-fantasy; of course Shepard is the only person to be able to win. I don't know about you, but I'm not one for being a cog in the machine. I like being THE machine. Shepard is THE machine, by the rules of the game and the narrative.

 

And if he really could be taken down by the other side... don't you think the other side would have tried? Didn't they try in Arrival? In the beginning of ME2 (where they admittedly succeeded, but then got subverted when they failed more and more times?) Or on the Citadel? You're assuming the Reapers are holding back somehow for some reason.

[CrutchCricket]

The two issues you have a problem with being a rebellion/conspiracy angle is that it won't work. You don't like handwaives. What would you clarify as a handwaive? Something not realistic? If that were the case, I'd have to call you out on your mystery organization. As for the clone/drone lust for power? That's not really a handwaive. You're putting that in there when I said it wasn't in there. Again, it's a ******.

 
The difference between your claims and my mystery organization is that I've admitted that all the details of my scheme aren't worked out yet. It's useless to pick apart an unfinished plan. The goals are clear enough but I have yet to specify how they'll be achieved.  Furthermore, if a flaw in my plan were found, I'd use in-universe resources and logic to try and fix it, as opposed to simply stating "well that just won't happen because it's my headcanon and I control what occurs". That's a handwave. That's what you appear to be doing. As for realism there there are varying levels of suspension of disbelief people are willing to go to, as well as differing areas where they're willing to do so.
 
People might allow that a few cunning minds, plotting in shadow with defineably large resources, several well-placed connections and help from Reapertech (or Reapers themselves as I'm working in a Control environment) would be able to create an Illuminati-type organization that might embed itself into the fabric of society and secretly manipulate society henceforth. They might allow it because I could plausibly document such a process and because there is precedent for such organizations both in universe and in other fiction (meaning the tropes associated with it are well-known). Your idea might carry the same precedent but it also requires something mine doesn't, namely that people stop acting like, well people. You expect people to be helpless in front of the Shepard, you expect them to be in awe of the Shepard and you expect them to be utter chumps if they ever went against the Shepard. You expect them to roll over for every atrocity you wish to commit. To cut to the chase, you're Mary-Sueing the **** out of your Shepard by making everyone else utterly idiotic non-entities. Yes there's plenty of morons in Mass Effect. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of someone smarter or better than anyone we've seen thus far, Shepard included.
 
I think this is what is wrong with your idea at the core, and why it comes across as playground fantasy (I have everythingproof armor and all that) as opposed to genuine fictional possibility. You want to say dehumanzing everyone is fine but you're not just doing it in-universe. You're doing it on a meta-level as well. There are no true characters, true people in your vision except Shepard. You blur the line between the meta with the universe from start to finish. And the results speak for themselves.
 

In universe, I'd still disagree. Yes, I fully believe that in universe, Shepard is the only being who can beat the Reapers. It goes beyond an image. Many of the great many powerful figures in the series all acknowledge Shepard's implicit value and capability as something that even the Reapers fear. They don't just fear 'The Shepard'. They fear the man himself. The game backs it up. It's a power-fantasy; of course Shepard is the only person to be able to win. I don't know about you, but I'm not one for being a cog in the machine. I like being THE machine. Shepard is THE machine, by the rules of the game and the narrative.
 
And if he really could be taken down by the other side... don't you think the other side would have tried? Didn't they try in Arrival? In the beginning of ME2 (where they admittedly succeeded, but then got subverted when they failed more and more times?) Or on the Citadel? You're assuming the Reapers are holding back somehow for some reason.

 
No. The player is the only one who can beat the Reapers. Shepard is an avatar of the Player. Which is of course the premise of every game ever. Only YOU can defeat x/save the world/ rescue the princess etc. But that's all in the meta. None of that has any bearing in-universe where Shepard is an able and inspiring commander. But he's not a god.
 
Elements of a story can be symbolic, can carry themes and apply tropes and all that. But the effect or purpose is rarely the same between the meta and in-universe level. A councilor just said they believe in Shepard? To us he said only we can win the game. To Shepard he just blew smoke up his ass. Or said it at face value. Or maybe it was the product of desperate hope. Or maybe it was empty words. Or a million other maybes. But in no sense is it meant that only Shepard can win in-universe. In no universe will a character make such a declaration and have it be true from their perspective, short of works that invoke prophecy/Chosen One tropes. Mass Effect is not one of those. And fear is meaningless. You kill something that thought it was invincible, the rest of them will fear you, regardless of who you are.
 
Sorry, but you are a cog in the machine. Maybe you're the critical cog. But a cog nonethless and one that theoretically could be replaced from an in-universe perspective.
 
And I didn't mean taken down as in physically killed. I mean taken down as in destroying the symbol of hope he presents. If the Reapers cared to understand how organics think they could crush the morale of the resistance by destroying "the Shepard". Note the difference in denomination. Killing Shepard himself and making him a martyr would actually be less effective then destroying his image. Not that the Reapers need to win that way. But they could do it, easily.

[Ryriena]

Frankly - returning to the original question - I have to ask "which cerberus" are you recruiting for?
 
a. ME1's inept iditoitc rogue science program?
b. ME2's This looks a lot like the CIA, but a bit stupid - possibility to influence them though?
c. ME3's Moustache twirling Evil Nutters of death?
 
"b" might have been vaguely tempting - certainly if there was a game mechanic to influence the organization over time... The others basically are stereotypical evil-baddies (of various baddy-ness) - cannon fodder to kill off without joe average having to feel guilty about it. Why would anyone want to join that?

CIA=stupid haha since a lot of their black operations come back to bit them ala Al Qaeda or the Mijnihidden

[DeinonSlayer]

I think most of its supporters are more drawn by the ideal than the "and then ________ got loose and killed all our guys" execution of it.

That, or they're caught in the gravity well of another object...

[Ryriena]

Doesn't bode well for any of the options really, does it?

Nope

[DeinonSlayer]

Hey, we know it happens!

[jtav]

As someone who isn't caught up in the gravity well, it's the ideal of Cerberus rather than the actual. I hate that something like the Council exists and would be advocating its violent overthrow if it existed in RL. I think every species should be allowed to forge its own path. I don;t like the aliens on a meta level and wish they would all just go away. And I think the galaxy is complacent. So Cerberus is the only game in town.

[DeinonSlayer]

Just out of curiosity - are you in an EU member state?
In the UK at the moment we're dealing with a similar situation. The Scots Parliament are having a vote on becoming independant of the rest of the UK. If (IMO when) they do it could signal a lot of changes for the rest of the EU, let alone establishing new borders here in the UK, relocating key NATO assets etc. Spain are particularly worried that if Scotland splits then Catelonia may try to split. But hey - maybe Putin will offer to come and liberate Edinburgh, just like Crimea and Ukraine.
So much for a global government, let alone a galactic one in the universe of Mass Effect. Similarly, so much for the fair and optimal sharing of resources among communities with a common alliance.

Not to delve too deep into RL politics, but how is this a bad thing?

[jtav]

@xray16

I'm an American with strong non-interventionist leanings. As much as I might wish we could coerce certain countries, especially regarding human rights abuses, it doesn't and shouldn't work that way. Government should be as local as possible. So the Council horrifies me, especially because it's an oligarchy, and I'm deeply cynical of the trilogy's focus on cooperation. Cerberus was really the only thing I could get behind and the N*zi imagery in 3 made me angry. The other atrocities are bad enough, but no need to put them beyond the pale.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

 
The difference between your claims and my mystery organization is that I've admitted that all the details of my scheme aren't worked out yet. It's useless to pick apart an unfinished plan. The goals are clear enough but I have yet to specify how they'll be achieved.  Furthermore, if a flaw in my plan were found, I'd use in-universe resources and logic to try and fix it, as opposed to simply stating "well that just won't happen because it's my headcanon and I control what occurs". That's a handwave. That's what you appear to be doing. As for realism there there are varying levels of suspension of disbelief people are willing to go to, as well as differing areas where they're willing to do so.
 
People might allow that a few cunning minds, plotting in shadow with defineably large resources, several well-placed connections and help from Reapertech (or Reapers themselves as I'm working in a Control environment) would be able to create an Illuminati-type organization that might embed itself into the fabric of society and secretly manipulate society henceforth. They might allow it because I could plausibly document such a process and because there is precedent for such organizations both in universe and in other fiction (meaning the tropes associated with it are well-known). Your idea might carry the same precedent but it also requires something mine doesn't, namely that people stop acting like, well people. You expect people to be helpless in front of the Shepard, you expect them to be in awe of the Shepard and you expect them to be utter chumps if they ever went against the Shepard. You expect them to roll over for every atrocity you wish to commit. To cut to the chase, you're Mary-Sueing the **** out of your Shepard by making everyone else utterly idiotic non-entities. Yes there's plenty of morons in Mass Effect. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of someone smarter or better than anyone we've seen thus far, Shepard included.
 
I think this is what is wrong with your idea at the core, and why it comes across as playground fantasy (I have everythingproof armor and all that) as opposed to genuine fictional possibility. You want to say dehumanzing everyone is fine but you're not just doing it in-universe. You're doing it on a meta-level as well. There are no true characters, true people in your vision except Shepard. You blur the line between the meta with the universe from start to finish. And the results speak for themselves.
 

 
No. The player is the only one who can beat the Reapers. Shepard is an avatar of the Player. Which is of course the premise of every game ever. Only YOU can defeat x/save the world/ rescue the princess etc. But that's all in the meta. None of that has any bearing in-universe where Shepard is an able and inspiring commander. But he's not a god.
 
Elements of a story can be symbolic, can carry themes and apply tropes and all that. But the effect or purpose is rarely the same between the meta and in-universe level. A councilor just said they believe in Shepard? To us he said only we can win the game. To Shepard he just blew smoke up his ass. Or said it at face value. Or maybe it was the product of desperate hope. Or maybe it was empty words. Or a million other maybes. But in no sense is it meant that only Shepard can win in-universe. In no universe will a character make such a declaration and have it be true from their perspective, short of works that invoke prophecy/Chosen One tropes. Mass Effect is not one of those. And fear is meaningless. You kill something that thought it was invincible, the rest of them will fear you, regardless of who you are.
 
Sorry, but you are a cog in the machine. Maybe you're the critical cog. But a cog nonethless and one that theoretically could be replaced from an in-universe perspective.
 
And I didn't mean taken down as in physically killed. I mean taken down as in destroying the symbol of hope he presents. If the Reapers cared to understand how organics think they could crush the morale of the resistance by destroying "the Shepard". Note the difference in denomination. Killing Shepard himself and making him a martyr would actually be less effective then destroying his image. Not that the Reapers need to win that way. But they could do it, easily.

 

The first few paragraphs are arguably a fundamental disconnect that we see. It's not going to get resolved. I am a bit amused by your reaction: take a look at your questioning of my actual intent and my attention grabbing antics. You kinda just indulged them heavily. Would you not say that I'm being effective by being so... ambiguous and illogical?

 

Yes, I expect them to stop acting like people. I don't view them as people to begin with. I never have, and likely never will. I view them as tools and meat sacks to be cast around and mutilated 'for the dramaz'. There are a surprisingly few amount of characters who I view as people. I care about them. I don't much care at all about them personally, which precludes caring about them in the universe, which precludes me thinking that they're anything more than meatsack robots waiting to be told what to do. To be honest, I don't think there is anyone better than Shepard in universe. Beyond even the player addition perspective. In universe, he is, prophecy or no, the guy who will beat the Reapers. The only one who can. There are countless instances where this is backed up. That's something inherent in the game. You might not like it, and it's not necessarily explicitly mentioned, but it is heavily implied that Shepard alone is the only being capable of stopping the Reapers. The writing, the narrative, and the themes all imply that. And I do absolutely support the game making that explicitly clear that Shepard, through some fluke of nature or prophecy or whatnot is the key to victory. Let's put it this way: How do I view Shepard? He can't win without the support of the entire united galaxy. That said, the Entire united galaxy can't win without him. You can call him the most critical cog of the machine (that can theoretically be replaced). The way I see it? He is the machine. Everyone and everything else are cogs. Shepard is the engine that makes the galaxy run. Without him, they're not going anywhere. I doubt we're going to come to a conclusion here, but yes, I do blend meta and in-universe realities. And it works! It really does work when you care to look at it from it that way. 

 

Given how this is becoming increasingly clear where this is going, I think we should stop posting on it lest we incur mod wrath. Given either of our track records for not ever backing down (seriously, we both have a tendency to want to get the last word in), we should stop this now before either of us get this thread closed.