Because I'm not the one claiming there was massive lore breaks and stupidity. Burden of proof is on you. I'm extremely wary of any posts or videos posted because the continual posting of completely bias videos. So again sum it up for me.
After you answer my last post, sure. Right now I don't care to prove anything to you.
After you answer my last post, sure. Right now I don't care to prove anything to you.
And what page was your last post on?
Blasto, clearly.
How about the Reapers?
Reapers were the main antagonist of ME3. Cerberus was a secondary antagonist.
Reapers were the main antagonist of ME3. Cerberus was a secondary antagonist.
Compare screentime of Cerberus, TIM and Kai Lame vs screentime of the Reapers. It's doesn't feel like the Reapers are the main antagonist.
The Reaper invasion is the central point of the story. That makes them the main antagonist.
It's not much different than LOTR, where Sauron is the main antagonist, but we usually dealt with his little minion Saruman most of the time. While Sauron hides in the shadows pulling the strings.
The Reapers are the real antagonists, but you dealt with their little Cerberus minions a lot.
To much of the Reapers and they lose their threat level. This is the same issue Star Trek had. The Borg were basically like the Reapers. But so many episodes particularly in the Voyager series were they run into them and manage to out wit them. Suddenly the big massive threat they were in TNG when they were first introduced was reduced to that of any other villain of the episode.
This is actually a legitimate point. However, the problem isn't Cerberus' existence, but the fact that they actually upstage the Reapers. And having a second opposing force is good for gameplay. I thought Cerberus was more interesting to fight. Also, to your example, there is a difference with a long running episodic TV series and one game.
Wow, Mr. Elusive, you know how to dodge uncomfortable questions, don't you?
Let's break it down, shall we?
1) "The Catalyst makes a statement without providing any proof. Why should we believe it?"
Your answer:
Where is the answer to my question? My question wasn't about Catalyst being right or wrong, it was about the lack of proof and therefore no reason to believe it.
2) "Explain me why would synthetics kill all organic life? Just because? Come on, you should be able to see this is insane. Even the Catalyst says "The created will always rebel against their creators". It says nothing about the destruction of all organic life, just created synthetics overthrowing their organic overlord".
Your answer:
What does it have to do with my question? Why should I bother replaying the trilogy? If you make a point, you need to provide me the proof, not the other way around. How "war, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption" are the reasons to destroy organics? Non of this has anything to do with Mass Effect.
3) "But why would the Catalyst think that our technology would doom us all? There is no proof of that in the game. Geth are not a threat to all organic life (not without Reaper involvement at least). EDI is not a theat to all organic life (obviously) and that AI on the Citadel is defeated by Shepard (ONE PERSON!)."
Your answer (shortened):
It can, yes, but not because the technology is bad but because humans (or organics) are flawed. In your examples technology is just a tool, the harm is coming from us using this technology with ill intent. As for AI... "Like"? Really? So you are saying that the reason behind the organic-synthetic conflict is dislike of each other? This is...like, child's logic. If you want to prove that synthetics would want to organize Armageddon in the galaxy then simple 'dislike' won't cut it. For a conflict to happen there needs to be a stronger reason.
Oh boy. You misunderstood. You are talking about potential threat. But potential threat is everywhere in ME universe. I am talking about the intentional threat. Geth don't venture outside the Perseus Veil (your example is of Heretics) and are only a threat to invaders. EDI means no harm to organics, it is ready to burn its last circuits just to defeat the Reapers. Do you understand now?
4) "Why do you need their DNA when you can just upload ther minds to the Reaper platform?"
Your answer:
Okay. So it elemental transmutation then and is needed just as a building material. But what about the minds and personalities? Have they been uploaded or not?
5) "Why does the Catalyst control them instead of giving them free will?"
You avoided the question.
6) "And why use them as a weapon when they are not invincible?"
You didn't really provide an answer as to why put Reapers in harm's way. Losses are inevitable in wars. The Catalyst says however that Reapers are not in conflict with organics, they just fulfill their purpose. So why start the harvest so late and in so blunt manner when it puts the precious Reapers in danger? I mean, it made more sense in ME2 than in ME3. Collectors were harvesting humans for the Reapers and the Reapers themselves were safe in the Dark Space. Why not continue this silent harvest? There got to be other slave species that can be used for harvesting purposes.
7) "Why not make invincible Reapers? Or why not make purely synthetic Reaper soldiers for the Harvest and let the "civillian"(harvested) Reapers "live" in Dark Space where noone can harm them?"
So, you want to tell me that those same ancient machines gods that constructed idestructible Mass Relays (only asteroids can break them) and the Citadel (which when closed is indestructible as well) don't have the resources to build the Reapers with the same properties? I don't buy it. And why can't they use the same organic material and transmute it into something as strong as the Mass Relays?
8) And why preserve species in Reaper form when you can simply destroy them to make room for younger species?
You avoided the question.
9) "What is the Catalyst's 'solution': To preserve organic LIFE in general OR preserve advanced SPECIES in Reaper form?"
So which is it? You avoided the question. What needs to be preserved here? Organic life in general as in plants, animals, bacteria etc or advanced species that are harvested to build a Reaper?
In total: you avoided 6 my points out of 9. This is a very one-sided discussion which is getting annoying.
1. Because BioWare set him up to state that. Or are you talking from in game perspective? In game perspective why would Catalyst lie to you?
Why would it lie to you? What obligation does it have to suddenly pull your dying body up to talk to it and then lie about what it says? Why even bring Shepard into it if it wanted Synthesis so badly? TIM could have activated Synthesis. Or it could have found and dragged a Citadel survivor, or even during the harvest of another planet after the Reapers wiped out the fleets in orbit pulled someone from Earth up to activate it. You create suspicion were none exists because you want it to be wrong or lying.
2. For the same reason why when a slave revolt would happen on one plantation all other plantations in the area would band together to suppress it. Resulting in a conflict that involves more then just the single plantation. Of course instead of a group of under fed and under equipped slaves these are AI's with equal technological footing and the advantages that come with not being a squishy organic.
The fact the Council didn't go after the Geth right away doesn't make any sense. They went to war with the Rachni and Krogan for less.
3. Gain Geth and EDI are not every example of every synthetic race that might develop. Remember how easy it was for Sovereign to convince a group of Geth to follow it and attack several colonies? Remember when that group lead by Sovereign representing less then 30% of the over all Geth managed to wreck the Citadel's Fleets. After they were well aware they were coming.
For 300 years the Geth have been killing organic's on sight without a second of hesitation. And suddenly 1 year of not killing is some how proof something drastic changed? Show me 300 years later and then I might start to agree with you. On top of this if you pick the Destroy option to stop the Reapers. Geth are casualties of it. Can you state with 100% certainty that the next group of synthetics created on purpose or accident would behave the exact same way?
4. Your statement was about their DNA. Asking why they were turned into goo and fed into the Reapers. My answer responded to that question. The details of how Reapers are created are never expanded on how ever the gooification of people with no out side resources needed to construct their body would indicate they break down the bonds of the minerals in the body and reform them into new versions to construct the Reaper body.
As for the minds Legion's dialogue about the Reapers at the end of ME 2 answers that question. Geth seek the unity of all their individual minds becoming one and is one of the reasons they like what the Reapers represent. Complete unity with no barriers in between.
5. I didn't doge anything. Claiming the Catalyst controls them enters into very vague statements that depend on a lot of things. Parents control children but the children still have free will. Managers control employees but the employees still have free will. Government control the people of a city, state or country yet those people still have free will.
The 3 Reapers we actually get to talk to seem to agree with the Catalyst as well as show a high degree of free will and individual personality. There is no direct control were the Catalyst dictates their every single move. Unless you get more specific nothing really showing your case.
6. Collector Harvest would only last so long before it became so obvious that everyone noticed it. At that point Collectors wouldn't stand a chance. Even if they managed to create a single Reaper. That Reaper would then be facing the rest of the Galaxy against it. If 5 Dreadnoughts = dead Reaper then the combined might of the Citadel Race's Fleets being 50 Dreadnoughts vs 1 Reaper. Well it would be as out classed as we would if the Turians from the ME universe decided to attack Earth now.
7. Invincibility is an impossibility. If you can create something to protect it you can create something to break it as well. This is the repeating history of weaponry and defense. That size of an army needing raw resources would deplete the galaxy of resources severely over time. That is why each Reaper is created using organic bodies to provide the materials needed to construct the body. Why the Reapers transform organic bodies into their shock troops. There is only a finite supply of any material unless the Reapers created replicator technology from Star Trek. Supplying materials not only for themselves and their army but for the younger races to develop and use would run into resources shortages eventually.
8. I didn't avoid the question. Preserving the races harvested prevent their uniqueness from being lost completely and gives it a chance to live on forever. Out right killing them makes them exactly the same as the synthetics they are trying to prevent from killing them. Rather how the Police apply their logic of why when they kill people it is justified and ok. But when someone else kills someone it is bad. Murder is murder no matter how you want to paint it. But the police us the logic they are protecting themselves or the general population by their action. That is what separates them from the common thugs who shoot people.
9.Why does this matter exactly? Both are helped out with the actions of the Reapers. If synthetics orbital bombard a planet not only will the advanced life get wiped out but so would the less advanced life. Reaper harvesting preserves the ecosystem allowing new advanced and lesser species to develop over time. Even if it didn't quite make it to ME level technology simply the use of atomic weaponry would allow synesthetic to live on the planet and would wipe out organic life.
This is actually a legitimate point. However, the problem isn't Cerberus' existence, but the fact that they actually upstage the Reapers. And having a second opposing force is good for gameplay. I thought Cerberus was more interesting to fight. Also, to your example, there is a difference with a long running episodic TV series and one game.
I never saw them as upstaging them. Simply the tactics of Cerberus were more aggressive and in your face. Due to the difference in goal between the Reapers and Cerberus. Reapers are much slower and deliberate in their actions. In essence this is the tortoise and the hair set up were the Reapers are the tortoise and Cerberus is the hare.
The same principle applies here how ever. The Reapers are suppose to be a threat yet if every single one of the what 20+ odd main story missions not counting fetch quest ones was Shepard mowing down wave after wave after wave of Reaper forces. Suddenly they aren't really a threat because at every turn they are curb stomped. Cerberus provides that extra cannon fodder that allows the Reapers to continue to hold that threat level the main antagonist should have.
Who should have the spotlight then?
Conrad Verner
space Hamster
Harbinger
Conrad Verner
space Hamster
Harbinger
Space Hamster FTW
Conrad Verner
space Hamster
Harbinger
Didn't gothpunkboy89 say that too much of an enemy can make them less terrifying (see Harbinger in ME2). Harbinger isn't in ME3 much, maybe that makes it more terrifying?
Harbinger, like the name states was sort of a herald for the Reapers. To let you know about the horrible things the Reapers were going to do to the galaxy, before the invasion. You didn't really think the Reapers would be as powerful as they are by Harbinger's threats alone. Actions speak louder than words.
Once the invasion starts, Harbinger disappears into the shadows, only to appear once during London. The Reapers actions during the war make them a force worthy of being feared.
Conrad Verner wasn't really a major character in any of these games. Kind of like Fist or the refund guy with cameo appearances in certain games.
Space Hamster wouldn't really have much need for the Reapers. They don't harvest lesser organics like him.
How about you sum it up for me.
Making an enemy less recurring doesn't necessarily make them less intimidating (although in Harbinger's case it probably would have helped). In the Reapers' case, subbing in Cerberus every other mission does not somehow preserve the Reapers perception of an indomitable force.
A problem is with how the Reapers are represented through the game's mechanics, namely that every interaction with the Reapers is a situation meant to empower the player. The main interaction with the Reapers is through a series of game mechanics meant to combat hordes of enemies (you can literally turn enemies into explosives that detonate to kill all other surrounding enemies). If a player engages with the multiplayer, as the game encourages, they may have downed thousands of husks. Nothing remains intimidating after you can grind them for points. The Reapers are at most a temporary obstacle in a mission Shepard is fated to complete any way.
The thing is, this is exactly how Cerberus is dealt with. Alternating every other mission between Cerberus and the Reapers leads to the impression that the eons old harvesters of civilizations are dealt with no differently than the Ivory Mook Brigade. If Cerberus seems beatable then so will the Reapers because the methods of engaging with them through the game's mechanics are the same.
You haven't really defeated the enemy if you adopt their methods.
If you adopt their solutions, the Reapers win.
Not in a firefight or space battle, rather by letting them convince you that their solutions are optimal, and you willingly give in to what they want.
You haven't really defeated the enemy if you adopt their methods.
If you adopt their solutions, the Reapers win.
Not in a firefight or space battle, rather by letting them convince you that their solutions are optimal, and you willingly give in to what they want.
Which is why I love sheps speech in the refuse ending.
"I fight for freedom. Mine, and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you. And I'll die free."
Yes we'll fight and we'll die but we'll do it on our terms. I sometimes think that should have been the default ending before cutting to black and the credits.
1. Because BioWare set him up to state that. Or are you talking from in game perspective? In game perspective why would Catalyst lie to you?
Why would it lie to you? What obligation does it have to suddenly pull your dying body up to talk to it and then lie about what it says? Why even bring Shepard into it if it wanted Synthesis so badly? TIM could have activated Synthesis. Or it could have found and dragged a Citadel survivor, or even during the harvest of another planet after the Reapers wiped out the fleets in orbit pulled someone from Earth up to activate it. You create suspicion were none exists because you want it to be wrong or lying.
2. For the same reason why when a slave revolt would happen on one plantation all other plantations in the area would band together to suppress it. Resulting in a conflict that involves more then just the single plantation. Of course instead of a group of under fed and under equipped slaves these are AI's with equal technological footing and the advantages that come with not being a squishy organic.
The fact the Council didn't go after the Geth right away doesn't make any sense. They went to war with the Rachni and Krogan for less.
3. Gain Geth and EDI are not every example of every synthetic race that might develop. Remember how easy it was for Sovereign to convince a group of Geth to follow it and attack several colonies? Remember when that group lead by Sovereign representing less then 30% of the over all Geth managed to wreck the Citadel's Fleets. After they were well aware they were coming.
For 300 years the Geth have been killing organic's on sight without a second of hesitation. And suddenly 1 year of not killing is some how proof something drastic changed? Show me 300 years later and then I might start to agree with you. On top of this if you pick the Destroy option to stop the Reapers. Geth are casualties of it. Can you state with 100% certainty that the next group of synthetics created on purpose or accident would behave the exact same way?
4. Your statement was about their DNA. Asking why they were turned into goo and fed into the Reapers. My answer responded to that question. The details of how Reapers are created are never expanded on how ever the gooification of people with no out side resources needed to construct their body would indicate they break down the bonds of the minerals in the body and reform them into new versions to construct the Reaper body.
As for the minds Legion's dialogue about the Reapers at the end of ME 2 answers that question. Geth seek the unity of all their individual minds becoming one and is one of the reasons they like what the Reapers represent. Complete unity with no barriers in between.
5. I didn't doge anything. Claiming the Catalyst controls them enters into very vague statements that depend on a lot of things. Parents control children but the children still have free will. Managers control employees but the employees still have free will. Government control the people of a city, state or country yet those people still have free will.
The 3 Reapers we actually get to talk to seem to agree with the Catalyst as well as show a high degree of free will and individual personality. There is no direct control were the Catalyst dictates their every single move. Unless you get more specific nothing really showing your case.
6. Collector Harvest would only last so long before it became so obvious that everyone noticed it. At that point Collectors wouldn't stand a chance. Even if they managed to create a single Reaper. That Reaper would then be facing the rest of the Galaxy against it. If 5 Dreadnoughts = dead Reaper then the combined might of the Citadel Race's Fleets being 50 Dreadnoughts vs 1 Reaper. Well it would be as out classed as we would if the Turians from the ME universe decided to attack Earth now.
7. Invincibility is an impossibility. If you can create something to protect it you can create something to break it as well. This is the repeating history of weaponry and defense. That size of an army needing raw resources would deplete the galaxy of resources severely over time. That is why each Reaper is created using organic bodies to provide the materials needed to construct the body. Why the Reapers transform organic bodies into their shock troops. There is only a finite supply of any material unless the Reapers created replicator technology from Star Trek. Supplying materials not only for themselves and their army but for the younger races to develop and use would run into resources shortages eventually.
8. I didn't avoid the question. Preserving the races harvested prevent their uniqueness from being lost completely and gives it a chance to live on forever. Out right killing them makes them exactly the same as the synthetics they are trying to prevent from killing them. Rather how the Police apply their logic of why when they kill people it is justified and ok. But when someone else kills someone it is bad. Murder is murder no matter how you want to paint it. But the police us the logic they are protecting themselves or the general population by their action. That is what separates them from the common thugs who shoot people.
9.Why does this matter exactly? Both are helped out with the actions of the Reapers. If synthetics orbital bombard a planet not only will the advanced life get wiped out but so would the less advanced life. Reaper harvesting preserves the ecosystem allowing new advanced and lesser species to develop over time. Even if it didn't quite make it to ME level technology simply the use of atomic weaponry would allow synesthetic to live on the planet and would wipe out organic life.
1. Of course it is from the in-game perspective.
My issue is not about him lying or stating the truth. My issue is about him being wrong. Even if he's right, the burden of proof is on him. Not every cycle is the same. Protheans proved it. Metacon War. They fought synthetics and they won and they didn't create any other synthetics. Same thing in this cycle. Synthetics do not actively attack organics, only Reapers do.
My question stands: Why does Shepard believe the Catalyst without asking for proof? Oh never mind, Shepard's a moron. And your questions about why bring Shepard into the Citadel and not some other average Joe are the questions that I have as well.
2. You go into some other topic. Why synthetics should rebel against organics? Do they have feelings of being unjustly treated? Do they feel hunger, do they get tired to cause the rebellion? They don't because they are machines. There are absolutely no reasons behind rebelling against organics other than buggy software. But okay, the lore states they will. Fine. My original question was: Why would they want to genocide all organics and extinguish all life in the galaxy that Reapers are a better alternative? Stay on topic, please.
3. Yes, I remember. I remember that Sovereign, a Reaper, caused part of the geth to do all that. Why do Reapers use Heretics to kill organics if they're purpose is to preserve organics? The Reapers themselves cause the problem.
Yes, Geth have been killing organics on sight but on their territory. They didn't invade others to genocide them. If organics don't go into Perseus Veil then everyone is safe.
4. How can you compare geth network to organic minds? Geth are designed to be stronger when they are together. They can upload all their software into the Dyson Sphere and live in piece. Organics didn't reach that level. In Mass Effect there are constant conflicts within species. What will happen if you bring all the people into one large room? Criminals, politicians, civilians, rich, poor, smart, dumb...Constant bickering, fighting and murder. Who is going to be the voice of all these people? Whose interests are going to be heard? Every human (and other organics) think differently. How can Reapers accomplish anything if there are trillions of people arguing with each other in its head?
5. So you're saying that all these harvested civilizations do the killing because they want to? They want the same fate for younger species? If they maintain a free will why don't they rebel against the Catalyst instead?
6. Collectors had seeker swarms that are capable of freezing the entire populations. Why give this useful tool to just Collectors and not make this your MO?
Anyway, why this bold attack? Why not attack stealthily instead of walking around on planets shooting everyone with beams opening themselves for Thresher Maw attacks? Why not force-indoctrinate everyone so they become mindless vegetables and are willing to be harvested?
7. Exactly! Why waste organic material on useless husks? And you didn't answer me again. If invincibility is impossible then why not make this organic material at least as strong as Mass Relay and the Citadel?
8. Lol. You and your analogies. Okay. So it's settled: They want to preserve every species. Then what was the point of Mass Effect 2? Why state that genetic diversity of humanity is special to build a Reaper if they were going to build a Reaper out of every species anyway?
And also this. Shepard says to the Catalyst: "But you killed the rest". And the Catalyst completely avoids the question. There are numerous advanced species that are simply destroyed. And the Protheans with the Keepers were turned into slave species for some reason...Why does the Catalyst, via Reapers, kill advanced organic life, if they're not harvested?
9. Why would synthetics bombard a planet? One time you say synthetics have a reason to kill organics because they are a threat to ecosystems but now you say that synthetics don't care about ecosystems and just want to genocide organics for the sake of destroying organics...Why are you so inconsistent? You contradict yourself so often it's not even funny. Why are you arguing with me if you don't even have a point?
I'm sorry but it looks like I'm wasting my time on you.
Surely if you are not going to destroy them, the only other option is to refuse? Anything else is submission to the reapers. First instinct is to destroy, but they control the cycle. they control everything. everything that has happened has done so because they have wanted it to. we have reached an inevitable conclusion based on their prompting. If that is the case then surely it is obvious that we have to refuse.
Some might call that a surrender, but is it because while we fight on there is no surrender.
Just a thought thinking about the game in a literal sense, and it could work while making anyone who chose a colour realise they were wrong without causing an internet free for all.
I've never picked the refuse ending, but have seen it on video. Sure Shepard talks big with what he/she says, but still is a dumba** for not doing anything. I wouldn't be surprised after the thing turns off the lights, Shepard starts running after the thing, crying like a little baby, asking for another opportunity to choose an ending
Which is why I love sheps speech in the refuse ending.
"I fight for freedom. Mine, and everyone's. I fight for the right to choose our own fate. And if I die, I'll die knowing that I did everything I could to stop you. And I'll die free."
Yes we'll fight and we'll die but we'll do it on our terms. I sometimes think that should have been the default ending before cutting to black and the credits.
I've never picked the refuse ending, but have seen it on video. Sure Shepard talks big with what he/she says, but still is a dumba** for not doing anything. I wouldn't be surprised after the thing turns off the lights, Shepard starts running after the thing, crying like a little baby, asking for another opportunity to choose an ending
While Refuse causing a loss is not consistent with the tone of the series, Refuse is the most thematically consistent ending and should have been the way to win somehow. From a tactical and logical perspective you can say Shepard is dumb for not choosing Destroy, for not saving at least the Organics at the cost of the Synthetics. Even if you think of the Synthetics as people too, you're sacrificing some to save the many. However, this isn't a real life situation; it's a story that had events controlled by the writers. The ending should be consistent with the themes throughout.
However, this isn't a real life situation; it's a story that had events controlled by the writers. The ending should be consistent with the themes throughout.
Being controlled by the writers won't prevent me from choosing destroy and certainly won't have me or my Shepard stand around doing nothing. With the way the game is, choosing destroy is the most consistent thing for me and the Shepard I play.
You haven't really defeated the enemy if you adopt their methods.
If you adopt their solutions, the Reapers win.
Not in a firefight or space battle, rather by letting them convince you that their solutions are optimal, and you willingly give in to what they want.
The thing is, I don't believe that. I think the idea that you don't win if you adopt your enemies' methods is a moralist's conceit, a way out of having to make a hard choice, and choosing a non-solution instead. If you end up choosing that, and essentially lose, it's not more than you have deserved.
So in principle, I like the way this ending was set up to reflect exactly this point of view. The price we had to pay, that I always found acceptable. The problem is that for paying such a price, the outcome *really* has to be worth it. And ME3 originally didn't present its outcomes as being worth it, and when the EC came out the tone was already set, so that it felt like a cheat that didn't fit.
The thing is, I don't believe that. I think the idea that you don't win if you adopt your enemies' methods is a moralist's conceit, a way out of having to make a hard choice, and choosing a non-solution instead. If you end up choosing that, and essentially lose, it's not more than you have deserved.
So in principle, I like the way this ending was set up to reflect exactly this point of view. The price we had to pay, that I always found acceptable. The problem is that for paying such a price, the outcome *really* has to be worth it. And ME3 originally didn't present its outcomes as being worth it, and when the EC came out the tone was already set, so that it felt like a cheat that didn't fit.
The first line in my post was something Samara said in ME2. During the mission before you hear about the Reaper IFF (on the Collector ship).
Your second point makes it sound like the game doesn't reward you with a cookie or something. It kind of rings back to people wanting better solutions and better outcomes. You do all this hard work, and the game should give you with a satisfying conclusion for your efforts.
That's not really the point of the choices though. As a leader, you make some pretty hard choices, and you have to live with the consequences. Regardless of whether it was worth it, or the right thing to do. That's kind of the message there.
The thing is, I don't believe that. I think the idea that you don't win if you adopt your enemies' methods is a moralist's conceit, a way out of having to make a hard choice, and choosing a non-solution instead. If you end up choosing that, and essentially lose, it's not more than you have deserved.
So in principle, I like the way this ending was set up to reflect exactly this point of view. The price we had to pay, that I always found acceptable. The problem is that for paying such a price, the outcome *really* has to be worth it. And ME3 originally didn't present its outcomes as being worth it, and when the EC came out the tone was already set, so that it felt like a cheat that didn't fit.
I dunno. Genocide, enslavement, and forced techno-organic merging seemed pretty effective for the Reapers. If one were desperate to win at any cost, I'd say making a choice to adopt one or more of these methods to stop the Reapers would be easy.
It's taking a stand knowing you are putting yourself at a disadvantage, because you want to be able to look yourself in the mirror again if you came out of this alive. Because you want future society's to be built on principle rather than genocide, etc. That's a harder choice. It's natural to want to live. Finding something truly worth dying for is harder.
EC's problem was that it felt like a cheat that didn't fit. It was that it was making excuses for things people already found deplorable.
Retour en haut