216 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

I honestly don't see what's tragic about the death/extinction/genocide of any particular race is to be honest.

That doesn't really change the fact that others certainly do, and always will.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

I honestly don't see what's tragic about the death/extinction/genocide of any particular race is to be honest.

 

Mordin Solus apparently does. He may be harsh and determined, but he does have a conscience.

[I Tsunayoshi I]

Betraying the krogan in Mass Effect 3 by sabotaging the genophage cure is pretty much unspeakably monstrous. Not surprising that Mordin wouldn't agree to it. Even from a purely consequentalist perspective, betraying the krogan would be stupid. It would merely lead to new wars once they find out later that the cure was not genuine, and this would lead to massive casualties on both sides. And most likely with the complete annihilation of the krogan species, once again something Mordin is heavily opposed to.

 

Yeah... It is possible to talk him out of it so that he doesnt release the cure at all, which nets you Mordin as an Asset on top of the Salarian First Fleet.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

Yeah... It is possible to talk him out of it so that he doesnt release the cure at all, which nets you Mordin as an Asset on top of the Salarian First Fleet.

 

Now that makes less sense than the "180 degree turn" Mordin makes about the genophage in the first place.

Then again, the entire series is based quite heavily on Shepard's powers of persuasion and leadership, so I understand why they did it.

[Jorji Costava]

Or rather, he did; He didn't go far enough. The Krogan are undeserving of anything more than complete extinction. The galaxy will be a much better place with those barbarians gone forever. The only reason I needed the Krogan in ME3 was because they'd make useful fodder against the Reapers. 

 

Personally, I haven't the faintest idea how an entire race can be 'deserving' of anything; individual members of a race can be deserving of praise or censure for actual deeds or misdeeds they have committed, but the idea of collective guilt for an entire race over things they might do in the future sounds highly questionable to me, to say the least.

[guigaccess]

Betraying the krogan in Mass Effect 3 by sabotaging the genophage cure is pretty much unspeakably monstrous. Not surprising that Mordin wouldn't agree to it. Even from a purely consequentalist perspective, betraying the krogan would be stupid. It would merely lead to new wars once they find out later that the cure was not genuine, and this would lead to massive casualties on both sides. And most likely with the complete annihilation of the krogan species, once again something Mordin is heavily opposed to.

That's why I think "telling the truth about the sabotage or not" shouldn't be the only choice there. There should be another one earlier: "agreeing with Wrex/Wreave demands and tell them you will cure the genophage or not".

 

That way, there would be three possible outcomes:

Wrex/Wreave demands the cure. You:

|- Promise to give it to them and:

 |-- Do it.

 |-- Sabotage it.

|- Refuse to give it to them.

 

I am pro-cure, but I think the ones who don't want it to be cured should be allowed to make it in an ethical way. You don't want to cure it? Then you should be allowed to come straight at the krogan's leader face and say you are not giving them what they want. But as things are, people who are against cure only has the option of acting in the worst possible way: promise the cure and pretend to give it while sabotaging it.

[Comrade Wakizashi]

That's why I think "telling the truth about the sabotage or not" shouldn't be the only choice there. That should be another one earlier "Agreeing with Wrex/Wreave demands and tell them you will cure the genophage or not".

 

That way, three possible outcomes:

--- Wrex/Wreave demands the cure.

|- Promise to give it to them and:

 |-- Do it.

 |-- Sabotage it.

|- Refuse it.

 

I am pro-cure, but I think the ones who don't want it to be cured should be allowed to make it in an ethical way. You don't want to cure it? Then come straight at the krogan's leader face and say you are not giving them what they want. But as things are, people who are against cure only has the option of acting in the worst possible way: promise the cure and pretend to give it while sabotaging it.

 

Agreed. My main issue with the dalatrass' demand of the sabotage wasn't even the fact that she asked it (I can totally understand the fact that the salarians are running scared about it), but that she asked me to commit treason for it. Not what I'd call a good base to start with for galactical cooperation, I'd say. Now if you could just refuse it in the first place (and probably miss out on a lot of manpower though), that would change things indeed.

[KaiserShep]

Having the option to refuse the krogan outright requires tweaking in the plot, namely the support for Palaven. They would have to be able to provide support regardless of the krogan, and by refusing, you lose the entirety of their ground forces and that's the end of it.

[guigaccess]

Having the option to refuse the krogan outright requires tweaking in the plot, namely the support for Palaven. They would have to be able to provide support regardless of the krogan, and by refusing, you lose the entirety of their ground forces and that's the end of it.

That's because you are thinking based on a plot made to bear only the two outcomes we currently have. If the game allowed you to refuse the krogan from the start, it would mean BioWare found a way to manage Priority: Tuchanka and the following events in a way that would fit whatever your choice was.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Personally, I haven't the faintest idea how an entire race can be 'deserving' of anything; individual members of a race can be deserving of praise or censure for actual deeds or misdeeds they have committed, but the idea of collective guilt for an entire race over things they might do in the future sounds highly questionable to me, to say the least.

 

Call it their inherent penchant for carnage and violence, and how, according to the codex, the Krogan that survived their own nuclear holocausts were actually the inbred, psychotic, and violent individuals that bred and passed their genes on, further expounding their race's violent tendencies through further wars and violence. Have you ever seen more than a handful of Krogan that can ever change? Personally, I look at the leaders and the culture of of a society. Depending on who they are and what they do, I determine from their whether they're worth keeping around or not. I personally believe collective guilt is a real thing. Maybe that comes from my environment of where one person blows it, then every blew it for not keeping him from ****** up. I have no problem with it. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Mordin Solus apparently does. He may be harsh and determined, but he does have a conscience.

 

I have a conscious too. I couldn't sleep with myself at night knowing I let a race of psychotic reptiles that love causing carnage loose on the galaxy. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

What a wonderful case of generalization. Replace "krogan" with "jews", "blacks", "latino's", ... It's really not more advanced than other racist rantings.

 

That's a strawman argument.

[Excella Gionne]

Mordin was already feeling guilty. I wish there was a Paragon interrupt to slap him into conscience and actually admit that he was wrong and felt guilty....his support towards the Krogans should be understandable.

[I Tsunayoshi I]

That's a strawman argument.

 

Except you were generalizing, even if his argument was a strawman.

[KaiserShep]

That's a strawman argument.

Thing is, collective guilt tends to have that problem, because it can use all sorts of arguments for the idea that such-and-such a group deserves to be wiped out or subjugated entirely because [insert anecdotal evidence or dubious statistic].

[Jorji Costava]

Call it their inherent penchant for carnage and violence, and how, according to the codex, the Krogan that survived their own nuclear holocausts were actually the inbred, psychotic, and violent individuals that bred and passed their genes on, further expounding their race's violent tendencies through further wars and violence. Have you ever seen more than a handful of Krogan that can ever change? Personally, I look at the leaders and the culture of of a society. Depending on who they are and what they do, I determine from their whether they're worth keeping around or not. I personally believe collective guilt is a real thing. Maybe that comes from my environment of where one person blows it, then every blew it for not keeping him from ****** up. I have no problem with it. 

 

A couple quick points: First, where does it say that in the codex? I just checked the Wikia and found no references to it. Second, I doubt I can successfully evaluate whether or not a given individual can ever change on the basis of a handful of personal encounters with that individual; only David7204 has the powers of armchair psychology necessary to pull that feat off.

 

Thirdly, I doubt that whether or not collective guilt makes sense as a concept has anything to do with your or my personal background; I just don't see how it can be rationally supported. The idea of being responsible for things you didn't do but might do just looks incoherent on the face of it, yet that is precisely what collective guilt would amount to for a large number of individuals.

 

And lastly, how does the idea of evaluating whether or not a given social group has a right to exist by evaluating the leaders of that group make any sense at all? That would imply that all Americans would lose their right to existence as soon as we had an especially bad president, and call it self-interest, but that doesn't sound right to me.

[DeinonSlayer]

A couple quick points: First, where does it say that in the codex? I just checked the Wikia and found no references to it. Second, I doubt I can successfully evaluate whether or not a given individual can ever change on the basis of a handful of personal encounters with that individual; only David7204 has the powers of armchair psychology necessary to pull that feat off.
 
Thirdly, I doubt that whether or not collective guilt makes sense as a concept has anything to do with your or my personal background; I just don't see how it can be rationally supported. The idea of being responsible for things you didn't do but might do just looks incoherent on the face of it, yet that is precisely what collective guilt would amount to for a large number of individuals.
 
And lastly, how does the idea of evaluating whether or not a given social group has a right to exist by evaluating the leaders of that group make any sense at all? That would imply that all Americans would lose their right to existence as soon as we had an especially bad president, and call it self-interest, but that doesn't sound right to me.

Secondary codex entry: Krogan: Blood Rage

Feared throughout the galaxy as nightmarishly violent warriors, the krogan are both aided and hobbled by their legendary "blood rage".
 
In the grip of that madness, krogan become seemingly invincible, but are merely totally unresponsive to pain. "Blood-enraged" krogan fight regardless of injury level, to the extent that krogan shorn of all four limbs continue gnashing past brain death until total somatic death.
 
The supremely resilient, hyper-violent blood rage is the synergy of two aspects of krogan neurology. The first aspect is a positive feedback loop in which adrenalin, also activated by fear or rage, suppresses serotonin, the brain chemical that induces serenity. The second is the over-developed krogan limbic system. In krogan, as in humans, fear or rage shifts mental control from the frontal lobes, responsible for reasoning, to the limbic system, responsible for aggression and survival. During that shift, krogan and humans exhibit diminished capacity for logic and self-control.
 
Prior to the ecological devastation of Tuchanka, blood rage was extremely rare among the krogan. Back then, while all krogan were capable of heightened anger and violence in fight-or-flight scenarios, almost none experienced insensitivity to pain. The one percent who did were those suffering serotonin-suppression. At that time, krogan society regarded the condition as pathological, and medicated or imprisoned sufferers to protect them and society.
 
Following nuclear ecocide four millennia ago, evolution selected only those krogan afflicted with blood rage for survival. Today there is no living memory among the krogan of a life without mindless, murderous fury.

Not a fan of collective guilt myself, but this is an unfortunate fact about Krogan physiology at this point.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

A couple quick points: First, where does it say that in the codex? I just checked the Wikia and found no references to it. Second, I doubt I can successfully evaluate whether or not a given individual can ever change on the basis of a handful of personal encounters with that individual; only David7204 has the powers of armchair psychology necessary to pull that feat off.

 

Thirdly, I doubt that whether or not collective guilt makes sense as a concept has anything to do with your or my personal background; I just don't see how it can be rationally supported. The idea of being responsible for things you didn't do but might do just looks incoherent on the face of it, yet that is precisely what collective guilt would amount to for a large number of individuals.

 

And lastly, how does the idea of evaluating whether or not a given social group has a right to exist by evaluating the leaders of that group make any sense at all? That would imply that all Americans would lose their right to existence as soon as we had an especially bad president, and call it self-interest, but that doesn't sound right to me.

 

First: It's on this page, under the caption Krogan Blood Rage.

 

Second: I don't feel the Krogan can ever change. It's that simple. I don't feel that any individuals on a macro-scale can change. Minus a few individuals (who I am still a bit dubious about including Wrex and Grunt), I don't see a likely number of Krogan that have any significant characterization beyond what the Codex describes them as. Thanks for comparing me to David by the way. 

 

Third: I don't see how it doesn't make sense, especially for a race where there's a lot of uniformity in temperament with carnage. Yes, I hold people responsible for not curbing or keeping the one who went insane or whoever did what in check for not doing enough to stop it or curb it or redirect it. It's a fault of their inaction as much as the offenders action. If they didn't know? I'll ask why they didn't know. I think it's going to come down to a belief in uniformity and sameness. I view the collective as one individual. I don't view the people as individuals, only by culture. It's why I believe many stereotypes and prejudices are perfectly justified.

 

 

Last: I believe leaders chosen by the people to be their face, their head, are indicative of the people themselves. Moreso with culture. If a particular popular culture trend is particularly banal, I think it could be applied to the culture as a whole for falling into such banality. I think we're going to interpret our very perspective of reality as fundamentally different here.

[Jorji Costava]

Secondary codex entry: Krogan: Blood RageNot a fan of collective guilt myself, but this is an unfortunate fact about Krogan physiology at this point.

 

Thanks for the reference. Not that I think you mean to be implying otherwise, but even granting all this, it's not clear that a biological propensity towards violence lends any credence at all to the concept of collective guilt. There's evidence to suggest that if one is diagnosed as a psychopath, that means that one is just physiologically more likely to engage in violent and/or anti-social behavior. But still, if you are diagnosed as a psychopath, that doesn't justify me in killing or imprisoning you if you haven't actually engaged in any anti-social behavior. Guilt requires responsibility, and responsibility presupposes deeds actually performed.

 

This brings me to why I think the genophage arc, even as it gave us a lot of the best moments of the whole series, is in some ways a conceptually flawed arc. If you don't emphasize the inherent barbarism of the Krogan and say that the violence is mostly cultural, then the genophage just seems obviously wrong, and there's not much of a moral dilemma to be had. If you do emphasize that the violence is just intrinsic to Krogan physiology, however, then you get a plotline that has some uncomfortable affinities with the "scientific" racism of the mid-19th and early 20th centuries, according to which certain groups were just inherently more violent, more dangerous, more socially undesirable, etc. After all, the US did have its own compulsory sterilization program rooted in the idea of eliminating socially undesirable traits, with the last such sterilization taking place in Oregon in 1981 (!).

[DeinonSlayer]

Thanks for the reference. Not that I think you mean to be implying otherwise, but even granting all this, it's not clear that a biological propensity towards violence lends any credence at all to the concept of collective guilt. There's evidence to suggest that if one is diagnosed as a psychopath, that means that one is just physiologically more likely to engage in violent and/or anti-social behavior. But still, if you are diagnosed as a psychopath, that doesn't justify me in killing or imprisoning you if you haven't actually engaged in any anti-social behavior. Guilt requires responsibility, and responsibility presupposes deeds actually performed.
 
This brings me to why I think the genophage arc, even as it gave us a lot of the best moments of the whole series, is in some ways a conceptually flawed arc. If you don't emphasize the inherent barbarism of the Krogan and say that the violence is mostly cultural, then the genophage just seems obviously wrong, and there's not much of a moral dilemma to be had. If you do emphasize that the violence is just intrinsic to Krogan physiology, however, then you get a plotline that has some uncomfortable affinities with the "scientific" racism of the mid-19th and early 20th centuries, according to which certain groups were just inherently more violent, more dangerous, more socially undesirable, etc. After all, the US did have its own compulsory sterilization program rooted in the idea of eliminating socially undesirable traits, with the last such sterilization taking place in Oregon in 1981 (!).

Honestly, I think this could have been done by changing just two missions:

N7: Cerberus Attack
Instead of fighting Cerberus, we fight a Krogan clan which has not aligned with Urdnot. They've reactivated the cannon and taken the opportunity to take potshots at Turian ships in orbit.

Tuchanka: Bomb
Again, take Cerberus out of the picture. We fight Reapers for the first half of the mission - they've uncovered the bomb, intent on arming it. By the time we get to the bomb, however, Krogan forces have driven the Reapers out of the area. The Krogan don't realize it has been armed, and think the Turian forces are there to cover it up (which, essentially, they are). You have to fight your way through the Krogan to get to the bomb and hold them off long enough for Victus to disarm it.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

To put it with less morality, and more pragmatism, sabotaging the genophage with Wrex alive is quite dumb. Shepard knows he is more than intelligent enough to figure it out. Shepard is drawn into curing the genophage because if there is one thing the galaxy needs to win the war, it's the Turians and their fleets. Krogan troops can, apparantly, change the tide on the ground to an extent where the Turian fleets have a far greater capacity to wage war away from Palaven. Sabotage the genophage, Wrex finds out, and will tell all the other Krogan about it. It only harms the war effort, and this is what happens. The Krogan have no fleets, no ships. Even if they did turn out to be a problem after the war, they're a problem that would be easy enough to fix. 

Now with Wreav, curing the genophage not only guarantees that the Krogan will be able to do something destructive afterwards, like conquering Australia, but is also completely unneeded. Wreav is an idiot, and with the Crucible being built, the War should be over, for better or for worse, before the piles of stillborn will start appearing. With the comm relays out, the Krogan fighting on the front line's won't even find out even if it's discovered beforehand. So go ahead, get the Salarians to back the Crucible. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

What a wonderful case of generalization. Replace "krogan" with "jews", "blacks", "latino's", ... It's really not more advanced than other racist rantings.

 

Well this is going to end well.

[Jorji Costava]

Third: I don't see how it doesn't make sense, especially for a race where there's a lot of uniformity in temperament with carnage. Yes, I hold people responsible for not curbing or keeping the one who went insane or whoever did what in check for not doing enough to stop it or curb it or redirect it. It's a fault of their inaction as much as the offenders action. If they didn't know? I'll ask why they didn't know. I think it's going to come down to a belief in uniformity and sameness. I view the collective as one individual. I don't view the people as individuals, only by culture. It's why I believe many stereotypes and prejudices are perfectly justified.

 

As is wont to happen on these threads, we're getting further off topic, so I won't address all your points. Anyways, the idea that the collective is an individual is problematic on a number of levels. First, just because the collective has a certain property, it doesn't follow that members of the collective have it too; to suppose otherwise would be a straightforward instance of a compositional fallacy. In some cases it might increase the likelihood that I have a certain characteristic, but that's an epistemological point, and the concept of collective guilt is not an epistemological concept.

 

Secondly, there's a generality problem lurking here: I'm a member of lots of collectives; I'm an American, I'm a teacher, I'm a member of a family, etc. These collectives can have conflicting general characteristics. For instance, most Americans are religious, but most philosophy teachers are not. Which collective 'counts,' for moral purposes?

 

As far as the David comparison, the point was not to explicitly compare you to David7204 but to simply point out that it's not generally possible to know whether or not a person will ever change based on a few personal encounters. Seeing as you've on multiple occasions suggested that people like myself have less of a right to exist, simply by virtue of not having the same occupation as you, I'd say it's an exceedingly minor offense.

 

Honestly, I think this could have been done by changing just two missions:

N7: Cerberus Attack
Instead of fighting Cerberus, we fight a Krogan clan which has not aligned with Urdnot. They've reactivated the cannon and taken the opportunity to take potshots at Turian ships in orbit.

Tuchanka: Bomb
Again, take Cerberus out of the picture. We fight Reapers for the first half of the mission - they've uncovered the bomb, intent on arming it. By the time we get to the bomb, however, Krogan forces have driven the Reapers out of the area. The Krogan don't realize it has been armed, and think the Turian forces are they to cover it up (which, essentially, they are). You have to fight your way through the Krogan to get to the bomb and hold them off long enough for Victus to disarm it.

 

On their own, these are some very interesting story ideas, but could you go into a little more depth as to how they deal with the problem for the genophage arc I posed earlier?

[I Tsunayoshi I]

I believe the point in changing the mobs involved in those two missions would be to try and present another side to the Krogan so that we dont get a one sided push for a cure.

[DeinonSlayer]

On their own, these are some very interesting story ideas, but could you go into a little more depth as to how they deal with the problem for the genophage arc I posed earlier?

You were talking about their inherent barbarism; the change to the N7 mission would be a demonstration of that kind of aggression, giving players a reason to question just how much they can be trusted as allies. By fighting Krogan, we'd see both how tough they are (why they'd be a valuable allied force), and why people like the Dalatrass are worried about a Krogan population explosion in the event that they turn that aggression on others. In the wake of that mission, I'd think it appropriate to question Wrex on whether curing the Krogan all at once is actually a good idea - by doing so, he's empowering his enemies at the same time and undermining the power base he built by gathering fertile females to his banner.

The change to the Tuchanka Bomb plot would be another side of that. They think the Turians are there to cover up the bomb. In truth, they are, and we're helping them do it. It makes Shepard's actions a bit questionable, leaving grounds for tension regardless of the outcome of the Tuchanka arc, showing both how the Krogan have been exploited and cause to believe they'd want revenge.