989 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

This gets brought up a lot, and I understand where it comes from. All I can say is I don't see it as drastic. Legion had the upgrades, and seemed mostly the same. The Geth runtimes in platforms, even as fully evolved AI, probably behave mostly the same, but they are capable of forming a personality in a local platform.

Philosophies get applied and decision are made per the situation. Some people would never have considered picking whatever they pick in the Decision Chamber if not for the specific circumstance. Legion is in a desperate situation, one that occurred under the old philosophy. It is not illogical for it to see some flaw from this experience and build upon on it - adapt its philosophy.
 

To me, since Mass Effect has always been a bit of a power fantasy, it is appropriate to have that power, its effects, and the ethics of its use, raised to such a ridiculous level in the Decision Chamber.

Of course, there is no way of getting around the fact that Synthesis violates an individual's person-hood and their right to self-determinism. The Decision Chamber raises the stakes to somewhat dizzying heights, the existence of all organic life in the galaxy. The question with all of the options, but most especially Synthesis, is: does Shepard have a right to do this? The ending challenges us to confront this question, normally answered categorically with "no", and come to some resolution.

Some people hate it (not pointing fingers ), but the challenge is one of the reasons I like the ending.

 

Yes, it raises the power fantasy to dizzying heights in the decision chamber, turning Shepard into a god. This is one reason why I dislike the ending so much and opt for destroy. Synthesis imposes "Intelligent Design" on the galaxy. Control continues the watchful eye of an AI god over it - however it's the only one where technology survives intact. Shepard becomes a god in all three endings - "The Shepard." Yet another reason to dislike the ending.

[SporkFu]

Yet the Council and not the Spectres are ultimately in charge. A Spectre needs to be able to make those decision when he has to but also needs to be able to judge when he has to.

It's a judgement call. The queen lives or dies. If you let her live she remembers your mercy and is grateful for it; if you kill her it doesn't matter anyway. By the time the council makes a decision -- and the whole Saren situation shows how good they are at making a decision be someone else's problem -- the queen might get out on her own. Who can say? And if that happens, there won't be any merciful act to remember. That's when I'd be worried about what the rachni might do. 

[von uber]

Javik calls it Legion in one of his dialogues even if you sell the geth unit for research.

[Vazgen]

The only time that I have Shepard call it Legion is when Legion is dead in ME2 during the suicide mission.

 

What I find interesting, is when I give the geth to Cerberus, Shepard will remember it from being on  the derelict reaper when seeing the geth VI on the dreadnought, but if Shepard doesn't give it to Cerberus and doesn't activate it, Shepard won't mention anything about the geth being on the derelict reaper.

Hmm, interesting Is there a video of that mention? I'm debating whether to sell the geth to Cerberus or keep it to give to the Alliance

 

Edit:

 

Javik calls it Legion in one of his dialogues even if you sell the geth unit for research.

Does he call it Legion, even if you simply never activated it?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The Council was made to be an incompetent foil for Shepard. If you think about it, they were the comic relief in an action movie. Sparatus was the hot headed over-reacting police captain. Udina served the same purpose for Shepard.

[SporkFu]

The Council was made to be an incompetent foil for Shepard. If you think about it, they were the comic relief in an action movie. Sparatus was the hot headed over-reacting police captain. Udina served the same purpose for Shepard.

Now I've got the mental image of Sparatus, Valern and Tevos as Larry, Moe and Curly. 

[Valmar]

This gets brought up a lot, and I understand where it comes from. All I can say is I don't see it as drastic. Legion had the upgrades, and seemed mostly the same. The Geth runtimes in platforms, even as fully evolved AI, probably behave mostly the same, but they are capable of forming a personality in a local platform.
 

 

Legion, as single platform, already had a 'personality' since it carried so many runtimes in it. It's understandable that it would retain some similarity to its original self. 'Normal' geth however are not as sophisticated as Legion. They went from being Varren to being Edis.

 

 

Philosophies get applied and decision are made per the situation. Some people would never have considered picking whatever they pick in the Decision Chamber if not for the specific circumstance. Legion is in a desperate situation, one that occurred under the old philosophy. It is not illogical for it to see some flaw from this experience and build upon on it - adapt its philosophy.

 

Is the situation really that different?* Yes, the reapers are actually here, sure. However the geth were always a target of the reapers. Yet instead of siding with them they decided to fight for their freedom. They oppose the old machines. As much as the odds were placed against them at the time they decided not to side with the reapers because of how deeply they believed in their philosophy. They believed so deeply in this that it actually divided the collective, something that is fairly significant given the nature of the Geth.

 

It seems inconsistent to me that they completely throw that out the window now when they were so against it before. Remember when Legion finds out the heretics were spying on the geth? It was stunned at this revelation and confused at how drastically they could change. I can only imagine how that Legion would react to the events future Legion takes part in in the third game.

 

Even if an argument can be made for the  geth's suddenly having a drastic change in perspective it still doesn't change the fact that it doesn't FEEL like I know them anymore. Legion and the geth now feel very different to me. While once I thought i had some insight and was beginning to understand their situation now I just feel like the people I thought I knew have been replaced by doppelgangers. They go from opposing and rejecting  the old machines and wanting to build their own future to suddenly eager to get the reaper upgrades they were so against in the second game.

 

The fact that Legion keeps lying to me didn't help matters. You think you know someone then all that happens. I didn't feel like I knew them anymore, didn't feel like I should trust them. The geth didn't want to fight, the geth wanted peace. I don't feel like I'm working with the geth anymore, though, they feel alien to me now because of how much they've changed so I'm not sure what the hell they want. Everytime I think I know them they change. Which is why I feel uncomfortable saving them.

 

*I acknowledge that the quarians destroying their mega-structure was a significant deal. While I may be able to view it objectively its too difficult to shake the emotional side of me that doesn't feel right about all this. It still feels wrong to me, it still doesn't feel like the Legion and geth that inspired so much intrigue in me with the second game.

[themikefest]

Now I've got the mental image of Sparatus, Valern and Tevos as Larry, Moe and Curly. 

I prefer dumb, dumber and dumbest

[themikefest]

Hmm, interesting Is there a video of that mention? I'm debating whether to sell the geth to Cerberus or keep it to give to the Alliance

 

I didn't find anything on video. I know on my current ME2 playthrough, I will not activate the geth. Only because I'm playing as a paragon to get the extra paragon points for keeping the thing.

[SporkFu]

I prefer dumb, dumber and dumbest

Valern: Would you like to dismiss the reaper claim, Tevos?

Tevos: Nah, you guys go ahead.

Sparatus: I'll do it if you will, Valern.

Valern: Okay. You go first.

Sparatus: No no. You go first.

Valern: You go first.

Sparatus: You go first! I always go first!

Valern: You go first!

Tevos: Why don't you guys both stop acting like a couple of p*****s and go at the same time, huh?

Valern: That sounds like a dare, Sparatus.

Tevos: It's a double dare!

Sparatus: Yeah, okay. You're on!

[Reorte]

It's a judgement call. The queen lives or dies. If you let her live she remembers your mercy and is grateful for it; if you kill her it doesn't matter anyway. By the time the council makes a decision -- and the whole Saren situation shows how good they are at making a decision be someone else's problem -- the queen might get out on her own. Who can say? And if that happens, there won't be any merciful act to remember. That's when I'd be worried about what the rachni might do.

"Might" ranges from "almost certainly" to "as close to impossible as you can get", so a position based on simply "might" is something that I never find very persuasive. It's another thing that a Spectre should be considering. What he shouldn't be doing is saying "I don't trust the Council so I'll make up my own mind". I think that that's a misuse of authority and one think a Spectre must absolutely have to do is use their authority responsibly. There are possible arguments that the game doesn't really go into and would just be a distraction for a game but should be at the back of Shepard's mind (mostly about how secure Peak 15 will be after (s)he leaves).

If a Spectre is sent out to apprehend someone then they should do that, not be judge, jury, and executor - but be prepared to be those if the circumstances mean that anything else is impossible or too dangerous, and be able to make the judgment as to when that's the case.

[Barquiel]

I would argue that 'sticking to the principles' is a concept the Geth share. The entire reason the heretics split up from the geth was because of a difference in principle. Also Legion could had just lied and said it was giving the code to the geth. It isn't like the quarians can tell what geth have the upgrade and what geth don't. They'd be completely oblivious to it and have to accept Shepard's word - something they potentially do anyway without any proof to back up the claim.
 
I hold "using the upgrades on their own terms" against Legion because it is DIRECTLY contradictory to the geth in the second game.
 
"Legion believes that the technology in the Collector base should not be used, for humanity has the potential to create their own future without it.
If Shepard chooses to destroy the Collector base, Legion calls it an interesting choice, saying humanity was offered everything geth aspire to - unity, understanding and transcendence. Legion adds that Shepard even rejected using the Reapers' technology to achieve victory on humanity's own terms, and comments that the Commander is more like the geth than Legion initially thought."

I said "sticking to your principles whatever the cost is". And the cost would be extinction. And I think it's consistent with ME2 that when survival becomes a factor their morals are rather...flexible. Not saying that's right or wrong, but its consistent with what we know about the geth. Backed into a corner by the Quarians, their intelligence reduced, the Geth were given an out. Considering it was either accept the code or go extinct, they chose to survive. It was an act of desperation. There is also the problem with the collector base dialogue that even characters that suggest you to salvage the base during the suicide mission (like Legion) all of a sudden disprove of handing the base to Cerberus during the epilogue...so these characters already contradicted themselves in ME2.

Lying about the code would have been an option, I guess. Maybe it would buy them some time and figure something out. Maybe not. Shepard can't suggest it, so we can only speculate.

[Valmar]

I said "sticking to your principles whatever the cost is". And the cost would be extinction. And I think it's consistent with ME2 that when survival becomes a factor their morals are rather...flexible. Not saying that's right or wrong, but its consistent with what we know about the geth. Backed into a corner by the Quarians, their intelligence reduced, the Geth were given an out. Considering it was either accept the code or go extinct, they chose to survive. It was an act of desperation. There is also the problem with the collector base dialogue that even characters that suggest you to salvage the base during the suicide mission (like Legion) all of a sudden disprove of handing the base to Cerberus during the epilogue...so these characters already contradicted themselves in ME2.

Lying about the code would have been an option, I guess. Maybe it would buy them some time and figure something out. Maybe not. Shepard can't suggest it, so we can only speculate.

 

In the end I suppose my disappointment is more with what the story did to the geth, not what the geth did in the story. If that makes sense.

 

"Might" ranges from "almost certainly" to "as close to impossible as you can get", so a position based on simply "might" is something that I never find very persuasive. It's another thing that a Spectre should be considering. What he shouldn't be doing is saying "I don't trust the Council so I'll make up my own mind". I think that that's a misuse of authority and one think a Spectre must absolutely have to do is use their authority responsibly. There are possible arguments that the game doesn't really go into and would just be a distraction for a game but should be at the back of Shepard's mind (mostly about how secure Peak 15 will be after (s)he leaves).

If a Spectre is sent out to apprehend someone then they should do that, not be judge, jury, and executor - but be prepared to be those if the circumstances mean that anything else is impossible or too dangerous, and be able to make the judgment as to when that's the case.

 

Honestly it sounds like you're imposing your own moral beliefs on what it means to be a spectre.

 

"They form an elite group selected from a number of different species, and their primary responsibility is to preserve galactic stability by whatever means necessary. Spectres act in any way they see fit, either with careful diplomacy or ruthless force, being officially above any law."

 

You're suggesting how you believe they SHOULD function rather than how they do function. You may not believe Spectre's should be judge, jury and executioner but legally they are. It is what the position is for, exclusively. How you choose to handle that responsibility is up to you, there is nothing that really dictates how a spectre must behave. They can be a little boy scout or they can be absolutely ruthless. Both methods of approach are within the rights and duty of the spectre. It is why spectres are a controversial group in the Mass Effect universe to begin with.

[SporkFu]

"Might" ranges from "almost certainly" to "as close to impossible as you can get", so a position based on simply "might" is something that I never find very persuasive. It's another thing that a Spectre should be considering. What he shouldn't be doing is saying "I don't trust the Council so I'll make up my own mind". I think that that's a misuse of authority and one think a Spectre must absolutely have to do is use their authority responsibly. There are possible arguments that the game doesn't really go into and would just be a distraction for a game but should be at the back of Shepard's mind (mostly about how secure Peak 15 will be after (s)he leaves).

If a Spectre is sent out to apprehend someone then they should do that, not be judge, jury, and executor - but be prepared to be those if the circumstances mean that anything else is impossible or too dangerous, and be able to make the judgment as to when that's the case.

Someone is picked to be a spectre based on their experience; is this person capable of making the hard choices, whatever they may be? If so, welcome to the spectrehood. Go out there and keep the galaxy running smoothly, and we don't want to know what you might have do to accomplish that. 

[Iakus]

The Council was made to be an incompetent foil for Shepard. If you think about it, they were the comic relief in an action movie. Sparatus was the hot headed over-reacting police captain. Udina served the same purpose for Shepard.

 

Shepaaaaaaaaard!!!!

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=W0ZMzlQJyYY

 

edit:  corrected video 

[SporkFu]

Shepaaaaaaaaard!!!!

Inquisition? it's not Tuesday yet  *runs away* ​ 

[Barquiel]

In the end I suppose my disappointment is more with what the story did to the geth, not what the geth did in the story. If that makes sense.

Yes, makes sense...and I agree

Lore-wise, I also think the ME2 geth were more interesting. The geth and the rachni were the two alien cultures that BW tried to make...truly alien.

[Valmar]

Yes, makes sense...and I agree

Lore-wise, I also think the ME2 geth were more interesting. The geth and the rachni were the two alien cultures that BW tried to make...truly alien.

 

Ah, the Rachni... so much potential... flushed down the drain. What the story did to them (or even, all it DIDN'T do with them) is even more disappointing than the geth...

[themikefest]

Inquisition? it's not Tuesday yet  *runs away* ​ 

Don't run too far. You want to be back in time for Tuesday when the game comes out

[SporkFu]

Don't run too far. You want to be back in time for Tuesday when the game comes out

Except I'll still be waiting for at least a few days after that for my copy to arrive in the mail. Pretty sure I'll just be walking long before then, heh.
EDIT: maybe taking the bus.

[Reorte]

Honestly it sounds like you're imposing your own moral beliefs on what it means to be a spectre.
 
"They form an elite group selected from a number of different species, and their primary responsibility is to preserve galactic stability by whatever means necessary. Spectres act in any way they see fit, either with careful diplomacy or ruthless force, being officially above any law."
 
You're suggesting how you believe they SHOULD function rather than how they do function. You may not believe Spectre's should be judge, jury and executioner but legally they are. It is what the position is for, exclusively. How you choose to handle that responsibility is up to you, there is nothing that really dictates how a spectre must behave. They can be a little boy scout or they can be absolutely ruthless. Both methods of approach are within the rights and duty of the spectre. It is why spectres are a controversial group in the Mass Effect universe to begin with.

I'm suggesting how they would have to function in order to be able to function. The very fact that they can act above the law as they see fit means that they'll have had to demonstrate the ability to not misuse that power. "As they see fit" doesn't equate to "whatever they feel like." Any government that gave that sort of power to anyone who didn't use it as appropriate would be completely and utterly insane, and places like Noveria certainly wouldn't accept Spectre authority. You mention the word "duty" - they have a duty and if they didn't perform that by doing what is necessary - and didn't have the ability to judge what's necessary, then they wouldn't be fit to do the job.

The alternative is for them to have no responsibility, and that simply wouldn't work. The Council would not give Spectre authority to someone they weren't certain wouldn't abuse it.

Someone is picked to be a spectre based on their experience; is this person capable of making the hard choices, whatever they may be? If so, welcome to the spectrehood. Go out there and keep the galaxy running smoothly, and we don't want to know what you might have do to accomplish that.

Exactly - they are trusted to do the right thing, whatever is necessary. They are trusted to have the necessary skills and judgement. They're controversial as it is. If they're seen to do the wrong thing (let a dangerous criminal gang go in order to rescue a kitten up a tree, or leave a trail of corpses behind going after someone who stole a loaf of bread) that would tip over into outright unacceptance.
My moral position has nothing to do with it.

If there were no lines that a Spectre couldn't step over then Shepard wouldn't have ever been sent after Saren.

[Valmar]

I'm suggesting how they would have to function in order to be able to function. The very fact that they can act above the law as they see fit means that they'll have had to demonstrate the ability to not misuse that power. "As they see fit" doesn't equate to "whatever they feel like." Any government that gave that sort of power to anyone who didn't use it as appropriate would be completely and utterly insane, and places like Noveria certainly wouldn't accept Spectre authority. You mention the word "duty" - they have a duty and if they didn't perform that by doing what is necessary - and didn't have the ability to judge what's necessary, then they wouldn't be fit to do the job.

The alternative is for them to have no responsibility, and that simply wouldn't work. The Council would not give Spectre authority to someone they weren't certain wouldn't abuse it.
 

 

No, you're still just imposing your morals on them to dictate how they must function. I'm not disagreeing with you on how they should function only telling you how they actually do function within the lore. They do not have such moral restrictions placed on them. They're free to do whatever they want, they're extremely "big picture" focus. "As they see fit" does equate to "whatever they feel like" for all intents and purposes. Again this is part of what people in the universe dislike about the spectres, even the head of C-Sec has issues with the spectres on these very grounds. 

 

Their one and only responsibility to maintain galactic stability. That's it, that is their only mandate. It is vague enough that it could easily encompass anyones moral beliefs and interpretations. Destroying the rachni maintains stability. Saving the rachni... well, if you want to say that no species should be completely eradicated then you can say that saving them maintains stability in that sense. It's not like the council will approve of either decision, you're either a monster for killing them or a monster for releasing them. It is still your call to make - if the council really felt it was out of line they could had revoked the spectre status. Hell remember they'll let you keep your spectre status even when you're working for Cerberus, a known terrorist organization! Spectres are above the law. They have to do something insanely bad to get any fingers waved at them.

 

Remember the Spectre from LotsB blew up a damn building full of people and works with the shadow broker because the ends justified the means. You do some favors for them SB and in return he shares information that will save a lot of lives. A few sacrificed for the greater good of the whole, yadda yadda. This is the kind of **** a spectre has the authority to do, it is within their right legally speaking. That, again, is one of the reasons they're controversial in the story.

 

As for the council not giving the position to people who wouldn't abuse it... eh. You wouldn't give someone complete and total power to do whatever they wanted if you didn't want them to be able to abuse it when needed. Just saying. This is not the justicar code, its spectres. They are given complete freedom to achieve their goal no matter the cost. Very 'big picture' focused, again. "Because of the rigorous selection process, Spectres might sometimes use unorthodox methods but they rarely go rogue."

 

Take a look at the footage of the first spectre:

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N4QkfPjJL4Y#t=166

 

"I knew they would survive. Probably." Yeah, real high-class boy scouts, those spectres. Look, I'm not saying what you impose on the spectres is wrong. I actually do agree with you that there is a way they should behave. What I'm saying is, however, that there are no moral guidelines to a spectre. There is no real 'way' they must behave or act. They can go around and shoot people at random if they really wanted to and as long as it wasn't something huge to draw a lot of political attention the council is unlikely to even question it - the less they know the happier they are, they don't even want to know what you're doing. You're free to do whatever you want. Even when the council is giving your quests in the first game they make it clear that you're a spectre and free to do whatever you please - they're just making suggestions.

[Reorte]

No, you're still just imposing your morals on them to dictate how they must function. I'm not disagreeing with you on how they should function only telling you how they actually do function within the lore.

All the lore says is that they are free to do whatever they need to do (not quite whatever they want otherwise Shepard would never have been sent after Saren). However there has to be more to it than that.

I freely admit that I'm operating on a "how it would actually have to work" basis. I'm not disagreeing in the slightest that they do things which would be regarded as outrageous and thoroughly illegal by anyone else. The assumption has to be that if the Spectre did that he or she was justified in doing it. I simply don't see that the Spectres could possibly work by any other means. The Council isn't that autocratic and they wouldn't have the popular view of an ultra-James Bond if most people crapped themselves at the idea of meeting them.

It's not about morality but practicality. I don't think its possible that their presence would be even tolerated in a society like Council Space if they acted in any other way. It's said that Spectre authority is just about the only Council authority that Noveria respects, for example. There must be a bit more than they'll play along (with extreme reluctance looking at most of them) out of fear of the Spectre killing them. They probably wouldn't have allowed the Normandy to even dock if that was it.

The only thing that makes sense is that they get given all that power and responsibility because they are supposed to be the absolute best, the ones who won't shirk from using it when they need to for their mission and won't abuse it either. Someone who goes around shooting people for kicks instead of necessity probably isn't Spectre material, so the point is moot.

"You wouldn't give someone complete and total power to do whatever they wanted if you didn't want them to be able to abuse it when needed" - if it's needed then it's not abusing that power.

Yes, I admit that that isn't supported by the lore so it's entirely just my opinion, I just don't see it being able to function any other way.

[Vazgen]

snip

Spectres are weird. So what if Noveria refuses to provide a Spectre with full access? What are his/her legal rights? Can he/she start a war over it? Obviously not, it's a decision that Council makes. Basically Spectre can act with Council authority if there is not really much at stake. When something dangerous comes up, that can trigger a galactic war, for example, Council sits back and lets things play out. If a Spectre gets the job done without much complications - good, if not and they are forced between starting a war or to abandon their agent - Spectre has gone rogue. It all comes up to the subject a Spectre deals with. A good Spectre understands that and acts more discreet in complicated matters. Shepard is as discreet as a drunk krogan in ME1, that's why the Normandy is grounded. He/she is kinda similar to Harkin - first human Spectre, a lot of backroom deals to keep him/her on the force... Udina does smooth things up with the Council, you can talk to him after every mission to hear about that.

[Autoola]

To me, since Mass Effect has always been a bit of a power fantasy, it is appropriate to have that power, its effects, and the ethics of its use, raised to such a ridiculous level in the Decision Chamber.

Of course, there is no way of getting around the fact that Synthesis violates an individual's person-hood and their right to self-determinism. The Decision Chamber raises the stakes to somewhat dizzying heights, the existence of all organic life in the galaxy. The question with all of the options, but most especially Synthesis, is: does Shepard have a right to do this? The ending challenges us to confront this question, normally answered categorically with "no", and come to some resolution.

Some people hate it (not pointing fingers ), but the challenge is one of the reasons I like the ending.

That´s probably the best reason I´ve ever heard to like the ending. I never saw it this way. I just saw plotholes, twists, 3 choices coming out of nowhere (to me) and their consequences in a slideshow. Confusion everywhere. But your reason is something I can understand.

It´s a pity it doesn´t work for me. Main reason is because my answer to it would be "no". Shep hasn´t a right to do this, neither has the catalyst to help advanced civilizations ascend so they could make way for new life. And also I´m not sure the ending was meant to be so... deep? Blue/green/red pictures and voice-over telling me that everything´s gonna be allright combined with plotholes etc. ... I don´t know. Perhaps there was a good intention, but a bad execution? At least I´ve got something new to think about.