The idea was that they´ve already cut the cables and reprogrammed the Keepers before tackling the Catalyst. But if we want to spin that idea further, why didn´t the Catalyst open the relay when the protheans arrived? Firing up a relay and arriving via mass relay transmission isn´t really sneaking in quietly.
This is the closed circle, we are returning to the beginning.
Riiiiiiigt, that's the argument against dictatorships I forgot about. They use their absolute power to save people and stop Genocide.
I have a question - if a Genocide is taking place and you have the power to stop it, but none of the powers that be will agree to stop it, what's your plan? Chill and comfort yourself that democracy is awesome?
I never said one was good or bad. There are lot's of arguments for benevolent dictatorships out there (just found this in a google search, I just skimmed it but it seems people argue about it in detail) and democracy is far from a perfect system (read my last post). Doesn't change the fact that the Shepalyst is a dictator.
I'm pretty sure the Council wouldn't allow genocide or a unnecessary genophage. Decision to step in is made by Council. I didn't think I'd need to go into details when I explained what my Shepard would do.
Shepard can impose his will on the galaxy, he definitly has the power to, but it doesn't mean that he does. My Paragon Shepard doesn't. He does what's best for everyone. He acts with the Council.
Nope, the Council probably wouldn't allow genocide ... unless it's the Rachni, right?
And "the best for everyone"? In my experience there is no such thing.
And again, whatever moral code Shep will impose on the galaxy, he is imposing it. The only way he could not is to not do anything and the EC epilogues suggest this is not the case.
Nope, the Council probably wouldn't allow genocide ... unless it's the Rachni, right?
That was a very long time ago and decided by a different Citadel Council. Also, considering the fact that all Rachni were attacking the other species and that the Rachni wars went on for centuries, eradication of the Rachni was pretty justified.
And "the best for everyone"? In my experience there is no such thing.
And again, whatever moral code Shep will impose on the galaxy, he is imposing it. The only way he could not is to not do anything and the EC epilogues suggest this is not the case.
This going in circles and I'm pretty sure it won't stop. I've repeated myself many times now, I've already said what I had to say so we might as well stop this here.
That was a very long time ago and decided by a different Citadel Council. Also, considering the fact that all Rachni were attacking the other species and that the Rachni wars went on for centuries, eradication of the Rachni was pretty justified.
Wow, really? It's a shame they never found out that the Rachni were actually indoctrinated.
This going in circles and I'm pretty sure it won't stop. I've repeated myself many times now, I've already said what I had to say so we might as well stop this here.
Hmmm, is it? I don't think we discussed the "best for everyone" angle to its logical conclusion. But ok, I can live with that.
So, if Superman decided to go stop the genocide, he'd be a dictator. Good to know.I never said one was good or bad. There are lot's of arguments for benevolent dictatorships out there (just found this in a google search, I just skimmed it but it seems people argue about it in detail) and democracy is far from a perfect system (read my last post). Doesn't change the fact that the Shepalyst is a dictator.
...
It's hard not to overthink the ending, when it makes Metal Gear look coherent in comparison. 
Obviously I meant from their point of view and at the time. Now the galaxy knows that the Rachni arent always hostile (if you save the Rachni Queen), so eradication wouldn't be justified.Wow, really? It's a shame they never found out that the Rachni were actually indoctrinated.
So, if Superman decided to go stop the genocide, he'd be a dictator. Good to know.
I don't know Superman very well (haven't read nay comics or watched any of the movies) but if he were to implement and enforce his policies - whatever they are - on a wider populous, then yes, I would classify him as a dictator. From what I gather though, he is just one guy who usually just affects his immediate surroundings with his powers and has neither inclination nor the ambition to go further than that, so I'd say no, he probably isn't one.
Also, the important point that I am making is that the issue is not about the subject matter one influences, whether the policy is about genocide or regulations on the size of chocolate bars is not relevant. The question is what how the decisions of what is considered acceptable behavior within a society is derived. It's a single viewpoint in autocracies and that is what the Shepalyst does according tot eh EC epilogues.
Obviously I meant from their point of view and at the time. Now the galaxy knows that the Rachni arent always hostile (if you save the Rachni Queen), so eradication wouldn't be justified.
It's also been theorized that it migh've been the Leviathans and not the Reapers. We never really got a straight answer.
Well, that's kind of my point though. It was justified from their point of view and from their perspective. So with that same amount of information, your Shepalyst might have done the same? But did that make it the right thing to do for everyone? In this case, certainly not for the rachni. Can you really presume that your paragon Shepalyst - even with all his good intentions - can always do what's best for everyone?
That is the conflict...means not ends.
Exactly. In fact, the conflict between focusing on means or ends is a theme running throughout the series.
Well, that's kind of my point though. It was justified from their point of view and from their perspective. So with that same amount of information, your Shepalyst might have done the same? But did that make it the right thing to do for everyone? In this case, certainly not for the rachni. Can you really presume that your paragon Shepalyst - even with all his good intentions - can always do what's best for everyone?
Here's what my Shepard would do:
1- Drive back the Rachni to their homeworld.
2- Deactivate the Relay to prevent further contact.
3- Investigate the reason behind the attack from the Rachni.
4- If the Rachni really attacked from themselves with no reason and are so hostile to everyone, they are a danger to the rest of the galaxy. Eradication is a solution in this case, as they are nothing but hostility.
PS: When I said that my Shepard would do what's best for everyone, that didn't include evil people. What kind of guardian/peacekeeper would help people who have pure evil/hostile intentions?
I don't think that point is valid....
Also, the important point that I am making is that the issue is not about the subject matter one influences, whether the policy is about genocide or regulations on the size of chocolate bars is not relevant. The question is what how the decisions of what is considered acceptable behavior within a society is derived. It's a single viewpoint in autocracies and that is what the Shepalyst does according tot eh EC epilogues.
...
Modifié par Obadiah, 20 septembre 2015 - 04:54 .
Here's what my Shepard would do:
1- Drive back the Rachni to their homeworld.
2- Deactivate the Relay to prevent further contact.
3- Investigate the reason behind the attack from the Rachni.
4- If the Rachni really attacked from themselves with no reason and are so hostile to everyone, they are a danger to the rest of the galaxy. Eradication is a solution in this case, as they are nothing but hostility.
PS: When I said that my Shepard would do what's best for everyone, that didn't include evil people. What kind of guardian/peacekeeper would help people who have pure evil/hostile intentions?
There have been entire groups of people who have been classified as "evil people" throughout history. Attempts have been made to exterminate those "evil people." Why is your Paragon Control Shepard right about who's evil and who isn't? That's the problem that I see. It's not just one guy in a uniform who has to answer to superiors anymore. Shepard is some kind of entity that can't be explained and the EC dialogue confirms that that entity is in control not just of the Reapers, but of every civilization in the galaxy. You can say, well, sure I'd do what's best for everyone and drive the Mystery Machine to the Rachni homeworld to figure it out, but you're thinking like a human. Shepard is no longer human, and we have no idea what he is.
There have been entire groups of people who have been classified as "evil people" throughout history. Attempts have been made to exterminate those "evil people." Why is your Paragon Control Shepard right about who's evil and who isn't?
Let's see, if an entire species (no exceptions) constantly attacks other species, is always hostile for no reason, destroys worlds and causes a tremendous amount of death, isn't it evil? Such species poses a threat to the galaxy.
Shepard is some kind of entity that can't be explained and the EC dialogue confirms that that entity is in control not just of the Reapers, but of every civilization in the galaxy.
That's false, it isn't said anywhere that Shepard controls of every civilization in the galaxy.
Let's see, if an entire species (no exceptions) constantly attacks other species, is always hostile for no reason, destroys worlds and causes a tremendous amount of death, isn't it evil? Such species poses a threat to the galaxy.
That's false, it isn't said anywhere that Shepard controls of every civilization in the galaxy.
No, because that's not what evil is. That's what aggression is. You're going to wipe out an entire species because they're aggressive? The thing to do would be to find out why they're aggressive. Are the Yahg evil, or do they just not understand you yet?
Shepard says, "I will create a future with limitless possibilities. I will protect and sustain. I will act as guardian for the many." While I do think that that's a noble ideal, I don't think it's all that easy to live up to. I can name at least five modern day dictators and at least two terrorist organizations who would claim to be doing exactly that.
No, because that's not what evil is. That's what aggression is. You're going to wipe out an entire species because they're aggressive? The thing to do would be to find out why they're aggressive.
Which is what I said my Shepard would do:
Here's what my Shepard would do:
1- Drive back the Rachni to their homeworld.
2- Deactivate the Relay to prevent further contact.
3- Investigate the reason behind the attack from the Rachni.
4- If the Rachni really attacked from themselves with no reason and are so hostile to everyone, they are a danger to the rest of the galaxy. Eradication is a solution in this case, as they are nothing but hostility.
PS: When I said that my Shepard would do what's best for everyone, that didn't include evil people. What kind of guardian/peacekeeper would help people who have pure evil/hostile intentions?
Are the Yahg evil, or do they just not understand you yet?
That's different, the Yahg didn't cause a galactic war that lasted for centuries.
Shepard says, "I will create a future with limitless possibilities. I will protect and sustain. I will act as guardian for the many." While I do think that that's a noble ideal, I don't think it's all that easy to live up to. I can name at least five modern day dictators and at least two terrorist organizations who would claim to be doing exactly that.
Ok... but that doesn't mean that Shepard becomes a dictator.
Which is what I said my Shepard would do:
And that's where we'll have to disagree, because Shepard is not longer human, but you are and that means you, the person behind the avatar, is thinking like a human. That's not possible for Shepard.
And that's where we'll have to disagree, because Shepard is not longer human, but you are and that means you, the person behind the avatar, is thinking like a human. That's not possible for Shepard.
What would make Shepard unable to that? He's no longer an Organic, but that doesn't make it impossible for him to come up with this solution.
I don't think that point is valid.
The Shepard AI exists as it does, and we aren't sure if among the Reapers it is a collective intelligence, a governing intelligence, or a controlling intelligence. It can control the Reapers, but we don't know exactly how that works either. I can stipulate that among the Reapers it is a dictator or tyrant. But with the rest of the galaxy?
The Shepard AI has vast power at its disposal, to the point that inaction is a conscious choice and policy. By not acting it would be imposing its will of freedom, self-governance, self-determination on the galaxy - in the example we're discussing, it could just let the human genocide happen. The logical extension of your assertion then is that the Shepard AI's mere existence means that the galaxy exists in a dictatorship, which doesn't make any sense, and renders the word meaningless.
Wether we can consider inaction on the Shepalyst's part a dictatorial policy is kind of an interesting philosophical question (on first glance, I'd say no, since nothing is dictated or enforced but I'd have to give it further thought). However, it's irrelevant here because we know that the Shepalyst will not stay inactive.
Therefore, I think you're wrong.
I don't think the idea of a dictatorship necessarily applies when nation states interact with each other, which is how the Shepard Reapers could choose to interact with the galaxy. It may petition for admission to the Council species, and respond to requests for help from others, aid it would necessarily have some policy in granting or denying it, like any other nation state. And it will act in pursuit of its own policy without consulting other states, again, like any other state does (like stopping the genocide on Earth), but again, that does not mean the galaxy exists in a dictatorship simply because the Shepard Reapers have the power to succeed.
That is true and if the Shepalyst and his reapers were to fully submit to council (or any other) law I would not call them a dictator to other galactic societies. However, that is not what the epilogue (even the paragon one) implies and so far, this is the first time this head cannon is mentioned in this thread, so it's a new scenario. In all the ones that have been discussed before (and that the Shepalyst him/herself advocates in the epilogue) the new reapers enforce a moral code on the galaxy. For good or ill, that remains unclear
@GalacticWolf5: Leaving the distinction of what is evil and what isn't to one individual, even one with immense knowledge and especially one with immense power is a very slippery slope IMO. I am glad there is no such judgement forced on humanity today from some vastly more powerful alien being as we are arguably the most hostile and violently expansive species on this planet. It's all a matter of perspective.
That really helped the previous owner to understand organics. Ah ok, Shep is a former organic.
Well we know that the state of the hardware aka your brain affects your thought processes. The jump from human brain to Catalyst brain would be like jumping from a brain in the final state of Alzheimer´s to fully functional brain. Or from toddler to adult brain or dog to human level intelligence.
We had and have superpowers or powerful neighbors meddling in other nations affairs without cnsulting others. It doesn´t go over kindly on the receiving end and it´s only a different type of hegemony.
It´s an interesting question what would your Shepalyst do, if it thinks the council is totally wrong on some matter and the rest votes no, where Shep votes yes.
It´s an interesting question what would your Shepalyst do, if it thinks the council is totally wrong on some matter and the rest votes no, where Shep votes yes.
GalacticWolf5 has kinda answered that already and also already complained that he/she had to repeat him-/herself often in this thread, so I'll take that:
For GalacticWolf5, Paragon Control Shepard always has the possibility to fully assess any situation, with access to all necessary information, according to a beautiful, wise, universal moral and legal code that everybody just has to agree on, and then steers the galaxy wisely and gently to turn this into reality.
It is a beautiful escapistic vision. Players of ME:3 are entitled to make this up for themselves. To each their own. (I mean it, there is no irony here. As long as GalacticWolf5 and others realise that this is a dream.)
To try to discuss this with arguments like "often enough, we can't know who is evil" is like discussing that a Disney movie lacks realism 
.
So: First Shepard will determine if the Council is indeed wrong. Shepard can do that in a completely objective and sound way. And also fast enough, so that no action will be taken on the base of the wrong vote. If the council was right, Shepard would have agreed with the council from the start. So the council is wrong. Shepard explains this to the council, and all of its members will of course agree and change their vote.
They will then hail their...ahem...thank Shepard.
And that's where we'll have to disagree, because Shepard is not longer human, but you are and that means you, the person behind the avatar, is thinking like a human. That's not possible for Shepard.
I agree. I think that's one of my biggest problems with Control. There's no "my Shepard" in Control, imo. It's not anyone's Shepard. "My Shepard" electrocuted herself/himself. It's Shepard AI. A machine. We don't know how this thing works, whether it is in any way limited by its programming and if it is then how, whether it is a real AI or something more like the Catalyst that was painfully inflexible, static, uninformed, not worried about morality of its decisions or anything else besides its "logic". Shepard takes this thing's place. Can we be sure the programming suddenly became better just because it now has a flavour of Shepard's personality? Will it be able to adapt to new circumstances? How would a thing like that, backed up by machines ranging in size from 160 metres to 2 kilometres, even determine the reasons for aggression of an organic nation if it strived for the best solution? How would it peacefully stop a conflict? Will it be willing or able to negotiate? The Catalyst was very far from infallible despite all that knowledge it theoretically could've gathered...
In my opinion, it all works nice in theory, but that's where it also ends for me. (EDIT:) However, I support people who try to headcanon something decent out of it and fill out the unknowns, of course. It's a game after all.
I 'd like point out the irony of this deep political/philosophical discussion in a thread titled "Stop overthinking the ending." Awesome
No it doesn't. It is not said or shown that Shepard becomes a dictator in the Paragon version.
Shepard doesn't say he will in the Paragon version, therefore I'm free to decided whether he does or not.
No he is not a dictator. My Shepard makes a decision with the Council, he doesn't decide for the Council.
So anyone who isn't a dictator can't stop someone from commiting genocide?
I think it's fairly normal for someone who wants peace to prevent any kind of genocide.
While "dictator" has negative connotations, we are merely discussing the style of government, not the pros and cons of said style. Normal or not, it would be Shepard making those decision alone. Again, this is not to say that it would be good or bad. Even in paragon, Catalyst-Shepard keeps saying "I will..., I will..." Of course, it also says "There is power in control." Remember, this is the Control ending. Shepard can't guarantee the outcomes mentioned if it resigns itself to being one vote of five, and eventually more, on a council.
Additionally, do you think that there will be fair votes if one of the members of the Council has control of a fleet that can wipe out everyone else combined? Or do you think that possibility might influence the other members just a bit?
In this situation, my Paragon Shep would:
1- Get the Krogan off Earth
2- Find out if the Humans really were planning another genophage.
3a- If they were, he'd destroy the research/project. The Humans and Krogan would then each be judged for their actions by the Citadel Council (which I headcanon that Shepard joins it). A truce would then be made and maintained.
3b-If they weren't, he'd tell the Krogan they were wrong. The Krogan would then be judged by the Citadel Council. A truce would then be made and maintained.
1) Shepard decides alone
2) Shepard acts alone. What if the humans say "No, you can't see what we were doing"?
3) Shepard acts alone. Council including Reapers decides punishment.
And why is Shepard on both the legislative/judiciary body as well as doing the investigating? Shouldn't those be separate? I acknowledge that the Council already seems to violate these ideas.
I point to James Madison “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicia[l] in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self–appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” (James Madison, Federalist No. 51, 1788).
And Montesquieu: “When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty… Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end to everything, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals” (Baron de Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, 1748).
I kinda see it the same way. Here is how I reconcile the Catalyst with ME1, Sovereign and the rest of the trilogy:
What is the catalyst? It's not an AI like EDI but more comparable to the geth. It may have started out as a single AI but it incorporated the intelligence of each reaper into its own, becoming one intelligence the hardware of which is divided within the reapers. Each reaper contributes to this intelligence and thus, the catalyst represents - as it itself says - "the combined intelligence of all reapers". It controls them not so much in the classical sense of enforcing its will on them but rather in the sense that it represents their consensus and thus their actions. Each reaper is still "independent, free of all weakness" but in conjunction they form the intelligence that calls itself the catalyst.
Does the Catalyst exist on the Citadel at all times? No. It exists within the reapers, in a meta-space of their communication (again, similar to the geth, who also exist as an intelligence in the communication between thousands of programs - until ME3 that is). They can only take control over the Citadel when a proxy initiates the interface. This used to be the keepers but the protheans put a stop to that. So in ME1, that was Saren and Sovereign and in ME3, it was probably TIM and his indoctrinated servants.
Nitpicly point so skip it if you don't care:
Spoiler
Why does the Catalyst say that the Citadel is his home? This goes in the same direction as Obadiah went? The reapers may consider the Citadel as their home because a lot of them would have been created there. Also, it is the centerpiece of all their invasions. Usually they occupy it for the entirety of their time in the Milky Way. That fits the description well enough without the necessity that the catalyst entity must always be there.
So if the catalyst doesn't have much to do with the Citadel but the crucible actually needs the Citadel, then why is starchild the catalyst? Because the crucible interacts with the reapers themselves through the Citadel. The crucible is designed not to generate the three colored beams but rather to interact with the reaper's hive mind intelligence. You see, if the catalyst is the combined intelligence of all reapers, it will be changed, enriched by a new perspective whenever a new reaper is created and joins the hive. The crucible must have been designed to do the same. It adds a new personality to the number of reapers, one that influences their consensus and thus opens them up to new solutions. This - too me - is the only way for a lot of the catalyst lines to make sense, such as "the crucible changed me", "you changed the variables" and "the old solution will not work anymore". The crucible alters the perspective of the reapers so much, that they consider their old solution wrong and explore other options. Who knows, maybe the Citadel on it's own was already capable to enact the likes of destroy, control or synthesis but the reapers never considered them until the crucible interfaced with them.
But the catalyst says that the crucible is only a power source? Right but it doesn't specify what kind of power. In the first instance, you'd think something like electricity or some other physical energy but that never made sense to me. After all, how could we build a physical power source that is more effective than anything the reapers could come up with without even knowing what we build? No, the power the catalyst is referring to is the power of the mind. It's a source of computational power if you will, the power of imagination or a new way to see things. A bit far fetched? Maybe but it's the only way to I can see to make sense of that weird sentence.
So if the crucible just added a new personality, like adding a new reaper, why didn't a reaper from a former cycle already change their perspective? After all, most former races would also be opposed to the reapers and if they were added, they should suggest something new as well, right? Because the first reaper was made out of the Leviathans, which in principle did not disagree with the original AI (see the Leviathan DLC). After that, people who got reaperfied in the following cycles were usually already indoctrinated to a large degree and even before, they probably didn't have one unified opinion on anything, so the resulting reapers would probably either not have much cause to disagree anymore or at least apparently not enough to sway the whole other bunch. Also, keep in mind that reaperfying races apparently doesn't always work and we don't know why. For example, the protheans didn't make it to reaper form, maybe that was because they were too resistant? Ultimately, we don't know but the crucible was designed to sway the reapers point of view. It provides one single new idea ("your solution is wrong") and enforces it in the reaper intelligence. That's the difference.
So does this explain the ending choices? Kind of, at least I think it can. Destroy is now offered to Shepard because the crucible has convinced the reapers that they are wrong, so they consider letting themselves be destroyed (plus all synthetics because they only got convinced that their solution is wrong, not their premise). Control is possible because the reapers have been convinced through the crucible that they are wrong, so they are uncertain and they hope that Shepard, if he/she joins them, will provide yet another perspective that will bring about the new solution. Synthesis is now possible because the reaper indoctrination doesn't mess it up anymore. The catalyst says "We have tried it before but you were not ready". That's because if you join the understanding of reapers hive mind to that of the rest of the galaxy, it will basically indoctrinate them. The result is that the cycles will just continue. However, now that the consensus in the reaper intelligence has been broken by the crucible, Synthesis doesn't promote the old solution anymore. Thus, people can join with this intelligence without adopting it's old goals. That is what makes the rest of the galaxy suddenly ready for it. It's actually a misconception of the catalyst. It wasn't the others who weren't ready, it was the reapers themselves.
So that's the definite truth and everyone else is wrong? Absolutely and if you don't agree then you are too dumb and don't know literature, art or anything else for that matter and you should probably go back to primary school!...
That was a joke. I do realize that this is all conjecture and a whole lot of interpretation. Like everyone else here, I am really overthinking the ending and this interpretation is not more or less valid than any other. But I do think that it does reconcile the ending with a lot of dialogue and plot points from the rest of the series without opening too many new ones. And as I like to say, if you can come up with a viable explanation for a plot hole - and be it ever so complicated - then it's not really a plot hole.
Wait, I thought you hate the ending and now you are defending it? Well, I still hate the ending, I still think it's really really bad and I still think the game would have been way better if it would have been scrubbed and completely redone in the EC. However, I don't really think the ending is bad because of some huge plot hole (it does have plot holes but most of them are fairly minor). No, I dislike the ending because I think it's horrible story telling. And I don't think it is horrible because it breaks conventions or because it it's too complicated but because it breaks with the characters and narrative coherence of the game (yes, I did use the word from MrBtongues video because I agree with him). Here is a more elaborate list of the main issues I do have with the ending and you will notice that "plot holes" doesn't really take a prominent role there. It is the combination of a lot of inconsistencies, some big, some small, that ruins this ending. All of them can probably be argued away (such as I just did for the inconsistency between ME1 and ME3) but there are so many and for each of them it takes so much effort, that the ending and it's underlying premise is simply not good.
The irony of the matter is, in order to make sense of this mess, you HAVE to overthink it.
I really like some of what you have here, but a lot of what I like is in the group of "ideas that are better than Mass Effect but not in Mass Effect."
On What is the catalyst?: This is interesting. I've long said the Catalyst is actually a very basic VI because it lacks the ability to think beyond a narrow view and doesn't really process new information. I like your idea though.
On Does the Catalyst exist on the Citadel at all times?: Again, I like your ideas, but it's not what was in the game. I was going to address specific points here, but it's just flat out wrong. The Catalyst doesn't just say the Citadel is its home, it says "...the Citadel is part of me."
On But the catalyst says that the crucible is only a power source?: I love your idea but it's not what's in the game. The Catalyst is clearly talking about power as in energy.
On: So if the crucible just added a new personality, like adding a new reaper...: This relies too much on the change to Reapers in ME2. Anything leaning on the plot of ME2 is bad.
On So does this explain the ending choices?: The Catalyst has not been convince that it is wrong, which should have been the ending, by the way. Contrast the ability to convince President EDEN to self-destruct in Fallout 3. Anyway, the Catalyst is still convinced that it is right and that the Reapers were the best solution. It only says that things need to change going forward because... something about Shepard being there. It still believes in its original premise, but just wants a new solution. However, Destroy avoids the problem. Control replaces the Catalyst. It doesn't want either of these. It wants Synthesis and only Synthesis.
Riiiiiiigt, that's the argument against dictatorships I forgot about. They use their absolute power to save people and stop Genocide.
I have a question - if a Genocide is taking place and you have the power to stop it, but none of the powers that be will agree to stop it, what's your plan? Chill and comfort yourself that democracy is awesome?
Again, we're not discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of dictatorship, but rather merely defining it. However, allow me to turn your second point around. What if your Catalyst-Shepard is the only member of the Council that wants to intervene to stop that Genocide? Will it abide the Council's decision and sit idly by?
I'm pretty sure the Council wouldn't allow genocide or a unnecessary genophage. Decision to step in is made by Council. I didn't think I'd need to go into details when I explained what my Shepard would do.
Shepard can impose his will on the galaxy, he definitly has the power to, but it doesn't mean that he does. My Paragon Shepard doesn't. He does what's best for everyone. He acts with the Council.
Right, why should you say what you actually mean instead of something you don't?
That was a very long time ago and decided by a different Citadel Council. Also, considering the fact that all Rachni were attacking the other species and that the Rachni wars went on for centuries, eradication of the Rachni was pretty justified.
What does it matter if it was a long time ago and decided by a different council? We're talking about an Institution called the Citadel Council that has changing members. What if the current or next council is of a similar mindset to that one? How do you know every Rachnii wanted to fight? What if some were just soldiers following their orders? Late in the war, they are just defending their homes.
As for the Rachnii extinction being justified, why does the Turian councilor get mad if Shepard kills the Queen then?
So, if Superman decided to go stop the genocide, he'd be a dictator. Good to know.
Yes, by strict definition, unless he was acting as proxy of some legal authority. Again, this says nothing of the merits or morality of said action.
Here's what my Shepard would do:
1- Drive back the Rachni to their homeworld.
2- Deactivate the Relay to prevent further contact.
3- Investigate the reason behind the attack from the Rachni.
4- If the Rachni really attacked from themselves with no reason and are so hostile to everyone, they are a danger to the rest of the galaxy. Eradication is a solution in this case, as they are nothing but hostility.
PS: When I said that my Shepard would do what's best for everyone, that didn't include evil people. What kind of guardian/peacekeeper would help people who have pure evil/hostile intentions?
Why wipe out the Rachnii if they've been isolated from the rest of the galaxy via closing the Relay?
I don't think that point is valid.
The Shepard AI exists as it does, and we aren't sure if among the Reapers it is a collective intelligence, a governing intelligence, or a controlling intelligence. It can control the Reapers, but we don't know exactly how that works either. I can stipulate that among the Reapers it is a dictator or tyrant. But with the rest of the galaxy?
The Shepard AI has vast power at its disposal, to the point that inaction is a conscious choice and policy. By not acting it would be imposing its will of freedom, self-governance, self-determination on the galaxy - in the example we're discussing, it could just let the human genocide happen. The logical extension of your assertion then is that the Shepard AI's mere existence means that the galaxy exists in a dictatorship, which doesn't make any sense, and renders the word meaningless.
Therefore, I think you're wrong.
I don't think the idea of a dictatorship necessarily applies when nation states interact with each other, which is how the Shepard Reapers could choose to interact with the galaxy. It may petition for admission to the Council species, and respond to requests for help from others, aid it would necessarily have some policy in granting or denying it, like any other nation state. And it will act in pursuit of its own policy without consulting other states, again, like any other state does (like stopping the genocide on Earth), but again, that does not mean the galaxy exists in a dictatorship simply because the Shepard Reapers have the power to succeed.
I see where you're coming from in that if they wanted to be ruled but Catalyst-Shepard said "no", it would be the sole decider. However, I would argue that in that scenario it would be the galaxy trying to impose its will on Catalyst-Shepard and Catalyst-Shepard refusing, not the other way around. So your extension is not logical at all.
Also, you're discussing nation states interacting directly with each other in a setting where they largely interact with or through a 3rd party.
That's different, the Yahg didn't cause a galactic war that lasted for centuries.
Because the Yahg are pre-spaceflight. Just because they didn't have the means (yet) doesn't meant they didn't have the will.
Retour en haut