I think Mordin illustrates the entire issue pretty well. He starts by taking the narrow view of the situation: that the Krogan were an implacable enemy threatening the other sentient life in the galaxy and that the genophage was preferable to wiping them out entirely.
Throughout the game, his consideration of the issue broadens in scope. Most importantly, he realizes that the situation was created when council races decided to "uplift" the Krogan to be meatshields for them. Krogan behavior has been consistent and predictable throughout their history with the Council.
First, the Salarians go diving through unmapped mass relays. Then, they use the Krogan as cannon fodder to beat back the threat that they invited in council space. Then, they decided that the Krogan were too dangerous and needed to be put down. And their method was horrific: their genophage didn't prevent pregnancies, it stunted the nervous system in the developing baby. For a thousand years, Krogan have been dealing with mountains of stillborn children, trying to find some hope that the next one will survive to birth.
The Krogans weren't a problem until the Council made them one. Yes, they're a brutal culture that thrives on hatred and violence. But they were killing themselves before Council interference. And they were brought into council space to fight and die in a war that did not concern them. Clearly, the Krogans aren't the only brutes in the galaxy. The Council's attitude toward the Krogan makes Cerberus look pretty gentle by comparison.
Mordin, Genophage, Ethics
Débuté par
hawat333
, janv. 31 2010 12:40
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 01:24
Bigdoser
-
- Members
- 2 575 messages
This is a very complex choice I think that there is no right answer but I think the geneophage cure will work out if wrex is in charge.
#28
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 01:27
drunken pyromaniac
-
- Members
- 8 098 messages
From what I understand, the krogan are essentially sentient locust. Unable to control their population growth. Therefore, his actions aren't noble but they were necessary.
#29
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 01:54
primero holodon
-
- Members
- 353 messages
The Genophage was the best thing that ever hit the krogan, because of it the Krogan have been forced to forsake tradition and make social advancements to survive. The Genophage breeds Krogan more like Wrex who are still fairly violent but also a bit more clever and have concern for their race
#30
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 03:34
knightnblu
-
- Members
- 1 731 messages
As for the initial use of the genophage to stop the Krogan rebellions, we were still planet bound and that really isn’t any of our business. Regarding Mordin’s modification of the genophage there are two distinct paths that present themselves. The first is moral relativism; this means that the ethics are based on the Salarian’s morality and not our own. We may disagree with their choice, but it remains their decision.
The second path is that of the moral absolutist. Absolutism recognizes only our own values and discounts the Salarian ethics, in which case modifying the genophage is wrong because the Krogan present no danger to the galaxy at this time and by continuing this program you oppress the Krogan people and do not allow them the chance to find their own destiny.
I believe that the relativistic path is justified, but since we are also members of the galactic community our moral judgments also come into play. First, the Krogans are an aggressive species as evidenced by clan Weyrlock (sp?). This aggression is an outgrowth of living in an incredibly hostile environment. However, clan Urdnot is uniting and attempting to change Krogan behavior. This demonstrates a distinct change in Krogan politics as noticed by Mordin when you return to clan Urdnot and they take the Weyrlock survivors into their clan.
Therefore, the danger to the galaxy is mitigated and not similar to previous experience. The level of the mitigation now becomes a variable in the calculus for modification. It is for this reason that “refreshing” the genophage should have been held off until a more thorough assessment could be made.
While it is true that the STG has already made such an assessment, there are now doubts about the STGs findings and other sets of eyes could prove useful in making the determination to refresh the fertility suppression.
Therefore, I conclude that the use of the new genophage was premature and wrong, at least in the timing. However, the security of the rest of the galaxy demands its use should the Krogans be unable to establish a sufficient degree of self control. Theoretically, lives hang in the balance and the innocent must be protected.
The use of the Krogan species to fight the Rachni was wrong because the Krogan were not ready to be advanced into the galactic community. This is why Roddenberry came up with the prime directive. Such change in society brings chaos and damages the species development. In short, the Krogan were not ready to be brought into galactic civilization as Mordin has said. The rebellions and deaths called for extreme measures and the moral dilemma we now debate.
The second path is that of the moral absolutist. Absolutism recognizes only our own values and discounts the Salarian ethics, in which case modifying the genophage is wrong because the Krogan present no danger to the galaxy at this time and by continuing this program you oppress the Krogan people and do not allow them the chance to find their own destiny.
I believe that the relativistic path is justified, but since we are also members of the galactic community our moral judgments also come into play. First, the Krogans are an aggressive species as evidenced by clan Weyrlock (sp?). This aggression is an outgrowth of living in an incredibly hostile environment. However, clan Urdnot is uniting and attempting to change Krogan behavior. This demonstrates a distinct change in Krogan politics as noticed by Mordin when you return to clan Urdnot and they take the Weyrlock survivors into their clan.
Therefore, the danger to the galaxy is mitigated and not similar to previous experience. The level of the mitigation now becomes a variable in the calculus for modification. It is for this reason that “refreshing” the genophage should have been held off until a more thorough assessment could be made.
While it is true that the STG has already made such an assessment, there are now doubts about the STGs findings and other sets of eyes could prove useful in making the determination to refresh the fertility suppression.
Therefore, I conclude that the use of the new genophage was premature and wrong, at least in the timing. However, the security of the rest of the galaxy demands its use should the Krogans be unable to establish a sufficient degree of self control. Theoretically, lives hang in the balance and the innocent must be protected.
The use of the Krogan species to fight the Rachni was wrong because the Krogan were not ready to be advanced into the galactic community. This is why Roddenberry came up with the prime directive. Such change in society brings chaos and damages the species development. In short, the Krogan were not ready to be brought into galactic civilization as Mordin has said. The rebellions and deaths called for extreme measures and the moral dilemma we now debate.
#32
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 05:16
silentbob 88808
-
- Members
- 4 messages
The question is, as we all know, does the ends justify the means?
well consider this question, do you bieleve all people (as the American Constitution states) are created equal (i.e. a krogan INDIVIDUAL is no worse or greater than a salarian or human individual)? I will assume you (as most people i have spoken to) answered yes.With this in mind would you deem it acceptable to kill a group of innocent people if this also killed a group of dangerous individuals, therefore protecting a larger group of innocent people?
But if the group of innocent people to be killed have the same rights as the larger group how can you consent?
The ends is of course the protection of the good by the destruction of the bad. Yet if the good allow the other good to be killed in protection of themselves how can they still be called good?I bieleve they have no longer have any virtue, they become guilty of the same evil they were trying to prevent. Do you sacrifice your life or your virtue?
or is the act of taking the evil upon yourself so no other need bare that burden, selfless? But what of the other innocents?
It seems to me (if no one else) that another means needs to be sought. If you kill the innocents you are in essence, consenting to very same being done, not only to yourself but your entire society condeming those who you would protect. If this continues to happen more evil will be done than good and so that is inevitably evil. If you bieleve this is acceptable then so is the genophage. I do not bieleve the genophage was ethical as the krogans are equal to all other races, therefore have the sames rights. If the situation is reversed, as in, the krogan kill all others to protect themselves the same moral question remains. Aggresive individuals need to be taken care of not the innocent. unless you bieleve that the krogan as a species consented to the genophage not a majority of individuals, that in my humble opinion is racism.Taking care of the aggresive kroagns is acceptable not the whole, as the krogan are equal beings.
well consider this question, do you bieleve all people (as the American Constitution states) are created equal (i.e. a krogan INDIVIDUAL is no worse or greater than a salarian or human individual)? I will assume you (as most people i have spoken to) answered yes.With this in mind would you deem it acceptable to kill a group of innocent people if this also killed a group of dangerous individuals, therefore protecting a larger group of innocent people?
But if the group of innocent people to be killed have the same rights as the larger group how can you consent?
The ends is of course the protection of the good by the destruction of the bad. Yet if the good allow the other good to be killed in protection of themselves how can they still be called good?I bieleve they have no longer have any virtue, they become guilty of the same evil they were trying to prevent. Do you sacrifice your life or your virtue?
or is the act of taking the evil upon yourself so no other need bare that burden, selfless? But what of the other innocents?
It seems to me (if no one else) that another means needs to be sought. If you kill the innocents you are in essence, consenting to very same being done, not only to yourself but your entire society condeming those who you would protect. If this continues to happen more evil will be done than good and so that is inevitably evil. If you bieleve this is acceptable then so is the genophage. I do not bieleve the genophage was ethical as the krogans are equal to all other races, therefore have the sames rights. If the situation is reversed, as in, the krogan kill all others to protect themselves the same moral question remains. Aggresive individuals need to be taken care of not the innocent. unless you bieleve that the krogan as a species consented to the genophage not a majority of individuals, that in my humble opinion is racism.Taking care of the aggresive kroagns is acceptable not the whole, as the krogan are equal beings.
#33
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 05:48
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
Ethics is a personal matter.
If something is authorized by the higher tier functionaries in the social hierarchy, you are quite clean going for it. Because if you don't do it, they'll replace you with somebody who would.
And don't forget, that it is the winner to whom the spoils go, including the priviledge to establish the rules for the right and wrong, and justify the future, the present, and the past.
If something is authorized by the higher tier functionaries in the social hierarchy, you are quite clean going for it. Because if you don't do it, they'll replace you with somebody who would.
And don't forget, that it is the winner to whom the spoils go, including the priviledge to establish the rules for the right and wrong, and justify the future, the present, and the past.
#34
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 05:52
knightnblu
-
- Members
- 1 731 messages
“well consider this question, do you bieleve all people (as the American Constitution states) are created equal (i.e. a krogan INDIVIDUAL is no worse or greater than a salarian or human individual)?”
First, the U.S. Constitution does not apply to them anymore than it applies to an Iranian or Russian. Do you mean as a matter of law or philosophy or as a matter of fact? If a matter of law or philosophy, then I would agree. If you mean as a matter of fact that all are equal, then I do not agree.
“With this in mind would you deem it acceptable to kill a group of innocent people if this also killed a group of dangerous individuals, therefore protecting a larger group of innocent people?”
Yes, I would. Unless and until someone can tell me how to use a 10,000 lb. bomb that only kills the bad people and not the good, then your argument does not hold water. Even precision munitions are not collateral damage proof.
“But if the group of innocent people to be killed have the same rights as the larger group how can you consent?”
Because their deaths are necessary for the greater good. Were innocents killed by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes, but their deaths were still necessary to promote the greater good. Did anybody really want to kill those innocents? No, but there was no way to prevent their deaths or would you suggest that surrender be an acceptable alternative? If so, what would you suggest in the case of the Reapers? If you could spare the galaxy from the horrors of the Reaper invasion would you destroy Omega if it guaranteed success? Would their sacrifice be worth the trillions in the galaxy? I say yes.
“Yet if the good allow the other good to be killed in protection of themselves how can they still be called good?”
By use of the word “good,” you do, but don’t justify it. According to Wittgenstein, you resolved your own query. I believe that a man can only do the best that he can. In war, the situation is fluid and sacrifices must be made if one is to survive. Sometimes the price of the sacrifice is innocent lives. If you played ME, then you had to leave one of your team to die. That person was innocent, but their death was a necessity in order to stop a greater evil.
“It seems to me (if no one else) that another means needs to be sought.”
Then please enlighten me, what would you do? Did the Krogans deserve to be put under the genophage? No, and they also didn’t deserve the disruption to their society by being uplifted by the Salarians in the first place. As Mordin said, it was like giving nukes to cave men and the results speak volumes about the wisdom of that choice. However the choice was made and the Krogans were infected with the genophage in order to keep them from overrunning the galaxy.
The “refresh” on the genophage was also wrong because there is demonstrable evidence that the Krogan culture is changing. How much and how long the change will last is unknown. I would have argued for modifications that would have reasserted the genophage if and when the Krogans proved that they were incapable of living peacefully in galactic society. I realize that I am opting for the lesser of two evils, but no other viable choices for a solution are present.
Some choices in the game as in life boil down to choosing the lesser of two evils. It is not fun to do, but there really isn’t any other choice.
First, the U.S. Constitution does not apply to them anymore than it applies to an Iranian or Russian. Do you mean as a matter of law or philosophy or as a matter of fact? If a matter of law or philosophy, then I would agree. If you mean as a matter of fact that all are equal, then I do not agree.
“With this in mind would you deem it acceptable to kill a group of innocent people if this also killed a group of dangerous individuals, therefore protecting a larger group of innocent people?”
Yes, I would. Unless and until someone can tell me how to use a 10,000 lb. bomb that only kills the bad people and not the good, then your argument does not hold water. Even precision munitions are not collateral damage proof.
“But if the group of innocent people to be killed have the same rights as the larger group how can you consent?”
Because their deaths are necessary for the greater good. Were innocents killed by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes, but their deaths were still necessary to promote the greater good. Did anybody really want to kill those innocents? No, but there was no way to prevent their deaths or would you suggest that surrender be an acceptable alternative? If so, what would you suggest in the case of the Reapers? If you could spare the galaxy from the horrors of the Reaper invasion would you destroy Omega if it guaranteed success? Would their sacrifice be worth the trillions in the galaxy? I say yes.
“Yet if the good allow the other good to be killed in protection of themselves how can they still be called good?”
By use of the word “good,” you do, but don’t justify it. According to Wittgenstein, you resolved your own query. I believe that a man can only do the best that he can. In war, the situation is fluid and sacrifices must be made if one is to survive. Sometimes the price of the sacrifice is innocent lives. If you played ME, then you had to leave one of your team to die. That person was innocent, but their death was a necessity in order to stop a greater evil.
“It seems to me (if no one else) that another means needs to be sought.”
Then please enlighten me, what would you do? Did the Krogans deserve to be put under the genophage? No, and they also didn’t deserve the disruption to their society by being uplifted by the Salarians in the first place. As Mordin said, it was like giving nukes to cave men and the results speak volumes about the wisdom of that choice. However the choice was made and the Krogans were infected with the genophage in order to keep them from overrunning the galaxy.
The “refresh” on the genophage was also wrong because there is demonstrable evidence that the Krogan culture is changing. How much and how long the change will last is unknown. I would have argued for modifications that would have reasserted the genophage if and when the Krogans proved that they were incapable of living peacefully in galactic society. I realize that I am opting for the lesser of two evils, but no other viable choices for a solution are present.
Some choices in the game as in life boil down to choosing the lesser of two evils. It is not fun to do, but there really isn’t any other choice.
#35
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 05:56
ObserverStatus
-
- Members
- 19 046 messages
Where is Shandepared? I'm sure he has an opinion on this.
#36
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 06:58
Lord Coake
-
- Members
- 655 messages
Masticetobbacco wrote...
V4nBl00d wrote...
In my opinion, the genophage was right, or at least preferable to total extinction. Cure the genophage in ME 2 has never been an option to me because, let's be honest, 99% of all Krogans are stupid ****** berserks and from these 99%, 99% are less more than final repositories for bullets. I think they would be going the right way with Wrex as a leader (if you let him live on Virmire, which I didn't) but even if he succeeded, it would take much more time to profe that the krogans are ready to be released.
was nuking the japanese also the right descision?
Yes. Otherwise X Day would have occured before the Emperor -if his generals didn't overthrow him- could surrender. Had that invasion launched, Japan would have ceased to eixist. It would have been a bloody slaughter from one end of the main island to the other, with millions dead on both sides, and a tiny fraction of the Japanese people surviving.
#37
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 07:00
notphrog
-
- Members
- 282 messages
Throughout ME1, I thought that the use of the genophage by tbhe turians was a mistake. It was wrong on many levels. I'm still a little conflicted on whether its use was right, but Mrodin convinved me that what he did was right. It was the best solution for all involved.
#38
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 07:02
Massadonious1
-
- Members
- 2 792 messages
bobobo878 wrote...
Where is Shandepared? I'm sure he has an opinion on this.
Knowing him, he would probably have prefered genocide, because 'eff all the aliens, or some such.
#39
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 07:18
Foolsfolly
-
- Members
- 4 770 messages
SunfighterG8 wrote...
I found his speech at the dead female krogan to be the best acting part in the game, had some good emotions behind it. You could feel is internal conflict with logic and spirituality.
By far the best acting. And I went from not really caring about Mordin to finding him to be one of the deceptively deeper characters in the game. His Loyalty quest is still a favorite because of that acting, those emotional and moral questions, and the general atmosphere of that level. It's one of the few spots that I don't skip dialogue in.
Deku Scrub wrote...
Mordin's logic seemed solid- a genophage is preferable to extinction. A warlike people with nearly
unlimited numbers don't leave you with many options.
Indeed. The most interesting thing about this is that it looks like we're heading to a possible Paragon choice of ending the genophage. This is a weird choice since.....krogan would reproduce at fast rates, they're not exactly happy with the universe and the council races, and have no real desire to reform. The krogan at Wrex's camp....there's Michael Dorn's character who vocally opposes Wrex, the techie, scout, and doctor who all disagree with Wrex, the other clan's diplomat who disagrees with Wrex.....the only other krogan agreeing with Wrex's plan to unite the clans and end this path of self-destruction is the Shaman! I'm not getting the sense that the krogan are the WarCraft 3 orcish horde and Wrex is Thrall a guy leading savages back to a lost nobility. He's merely the strongest guy in a pit of guys who haven't figured out they outnumber him yet.
The rachni however seem to be the savages returning to nobility in spades. They're almost hippie sounding in the cameo in ME2.
The genophage is actually monsterous. It's like the movie Children of Men, there's no future for the krogan to seek. There's no future, then there's no hope, if there's no hope then there's no reason to live. The fact that krogan aren't MORE self-destructive is amazing but the krogan left standing now are hurt, broken, and nihilistic. True the krogan could rally around a cure to the genophage and give them hope......but that's yet to be seen. Wrex's plan makes sense and ensures the krogan GROW as a soceity and increase birthrates and that's done nothing to their spirits.
Modifié par Foolsfolly, 27 avril 2010 - 07:24 .
#40
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 07:51
Xandurpein
-
- Members
- 3 045 messages
Personally I think that to begin with, it was wrong to force Krogan into a space technology civilization they where clearly not ready for, to use them as meat shields against the Rachni. That is what created the whole mess to begin with. The Council is now stuck with trying to devise a way to handle the fact that the Krogan society isn't ready for the technology they have been given. The genophage is trying to put the genie back into the bottle.
I do not agree that the genophage has deprived the Krogan of their future. The genophage does not in itself destroy the Krogan society or the future of the Krogan. The genophage will only destroy those elements of society that is unable to adapt. It's true that he Krogan society is dejected, but that is because they still yearn for a barabaric way of life that is simply not compatible with space age technology.
What Wrex is doing, is laying the foundation for a more stable society. Remove the genophage and Wrex attempts will break apart and the Krogan will go back to swarming the galaxy with ravening hordes.
The biggest problem I see with the genophage is that it is a very fragile solution. The Krogan has shown signs of genetically adapting to it and Saren's scientists have already once found a cure. It's not easy to know if the Krogan can change their society to a more benevolent one, before they discover a cure.
I do not agree that the genophage has deprived the Krogan of their future. The genophage does not in itself destroy the Krogan society or the future of the Krogan. The genophage will only destroy those elements of society that is unable to adapt. It's true that he Krogan society is dejected, but that is because they still yearn for a barabaric way of life that is simply not compatible with space age technology.
What Wrex is doing, is laying the foundation for a more stable society. Remove the genophage and Wrex attempts will break apart and the Krogan will go back to swarming the galaxy with ravening hordes.
The biggest problem I see with the genophage is that it is a very fragile solution. The Krogan has shown signs of genetically adapting to it and Saren's scientists have already once found a cure. It's not easy to know if the Krogan can change their society to a more benevolent one, before they discover a cure.
Modifié par Xandurpein, 27 avril 2010 - 07:52 .
#41
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 08:06
adam_grif
-
- Members
- 1 923 messages
Genophage is fine. It's just forced birth control, and the only alternative is blowing them up completely.
#42
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 08:19
silentbob 88808
-
- Members
- 4 messages
"First, the U.S. Constitution does not apply to them anymore than it applies to an Iranian or Russian. Do you mean as a matter of law or philosophy or as a matter of fact? If a matter of law or philosophy, then I would agree. If you mean as a matter of fact that all are equal, then I do not agree."
My use of the U.S. Constitution was meant to be simple reference, I did not mean to imply that the American Constitution takes precedent over any other governing doctrine. I meant the point to be of philosophy not politics.
I apologize for the miscommunication and any offense or disturabances my ambiguous writing may have caused.
"Because their deaths are necessary for the greater good. Were innocents killed by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes, but their deaths were still necessary to promote the greater good. Did anybody really want to kill those innocents? No, but there was no way to prevent their deaths or would you suggest that surrender be an acceptable alternative? If so, what would you suggest in the case of the Reapers? If you could spare the galaxy from the horrors of the Reaper invasion would you destroy Omega if it guaranteed success? Would their sacrifice be worth the trillions in the galaxy? I say yes."
My meaning was to what ends their death may be necessary. I also meant not to imply that in that particular scenariothe dangerous people were to be killed without harming the innocents, as you brought to light this is not possible.
My overall intent was to make clear that each seperate being (if you agree with my first question) as equal, and to be treated relative to their actions and that their species is irrelavant. In this light it makes no difference wether the galaxy is as diverse as it is or composed soley of krogan. This brings up the point that the krogans are just a smaller society within a larger group of societys.Looking at it like this brings forth a concept prieviously hidden to my ignorant eyes, that looking at societys as collections of individuals, the teatment of the krogan was acceptable. Any krogan who would have rebuked the genophage is somwhat consenting to the krogans aggressive actions and therfore somthing of a threat. Any krogan who would have consented to the genophage is preserving their innocence the only way they can, condemnation.
I appreciated and very much enjoyed the small debate and commments we had Knightnblu. You have swayed my judgement, i agree the genophage was acceptable ( although not ideal).
Everything i posted, i posted because I could not myself produce a counter argument to my points. If anyone can now refute my points please do so, because i cannot
And thank you knightnblu for your words. Your insight is admirable.
My use of the U.S. Constitution was meant to be simple reference, I did not mean to imply that the American Constitution takes precedent over any other governing doctrine. I meant the point to be of philosophy not politics.
I apologize for the miscommunication and any offense or disturabances my ambiguous writing may have caused.
"Because their deaths are necessary for the greater good. Were innocents killed by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes, but their deaths were still necessary to promote the greater good. Did anybody really want to kill those innocents? No, but there was no way to prevent their deaths or would you suggest that surrender be an acceptable alternative? If so, what would you suggest in the case of the Reapers? If you could spare the galaxy from the horrors of the Reaper invasion would you destroy Omega if it guaranteed success? Would their sacrifice be worth the trillions in the galaxy? I say yes."
My meaning was to what ends their death may be necessary. I also meant not to imply that in that particular scenariothe dangerous people were to be killed without harming the innocents, as you brought to light this is not possible.
My overall intent was to make clear that each seperate being (if you agree with my first question) as equal, and to be treated relative to their actions and that their species is irrelavant. In this light it makes no difference wether the galaxy is as diverse as it is or composed soley of krogan. This brings up the point that the krogans are just a smaller society within a larger group of societys.Looking at it like this brings forth a concept prieviously hidden to my ignorant eyes, that looking at societys as collections of individuals, the teatment of the krogan was acceptable. Any krogan who would have rebuked the genophage is somwhat consenting to the krogans aggressive actions and therfore somthing of a threat. Any krogan who would have consented to the genophage is preserving their innocence the only way they can, condemnation.
I appreciated and very much enjoyed the small debate and commments we had Knightnblu. You have swayed my judgement, i agree the genophage was acceptable ( although not ideal).
Everything i posted, i posted because I could not myself produce a counter argument to my points. If anyone can now refute my points please do so, because i cannot
And thank you knightnblu for your words. Your insight is admirable.
#43
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 09:44
Foolsfolly
-
- Members
- 4 770 messages
Xandurpein wrote...
Personally I think that to begin with, it was wrong to force Krogan into a space technology civilization they where clearly not ready for, to use them as meat shields against the Rachni. That is what created the whole mess to begin with. The Council is now stuck with trying to devise a way to handle the fact that the Krogan society isn't ready for the technology they have been given. The genophage is trying to put the genie back into the bottle.
I do not agree that the genophage has deprived the Krogan of their future. The genophage does not in itself destroy the Krogan society or the future of the Krogan. The genophage will only destroy those elements of society that is unable to adapt. It's true that he Krogan society is dejected, but that is because they still yearn for a barabaric way of life that is simply not compatible with space age technology.
What Wrex is doing, is laying the foundation for a more stable society. Remove the genophage and Wrex attempts will break apart and the Krogan will go back to swarming the galaxy with ravening hordes.
The biggest problem I see with the genophage is that it is a very fragile solution. The Krogan has shown signs of genetically adapting to it and Saren's scientists have already once found a cure. It's not easy to know if the Krogan can change their society to a more benevolent one, before they discover a cure.
I like this post because it got to thinking about a possible Renegade Cure the Genophage option. Cure it to have an army of krogan ala Saren to fight the Reapers...at the cost of ruining Wrex's plans for a united krogan soceity. Which means the Paragon choice would be to not cure the Genophage so the krogan can have some time to develop a culture.
And maybe that first sign of hope is, of all sources, Grunt the genetically perfect krogan who's Battlemaster is friends with the chief trying to reign in the krogan and settle into a period of construction.
Eh, I can hope. I'd hate for ME3 to end and the krogan be the same brutes and mercs we met in ME1.
#44
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 09:57
Nu-Nu
-
- Members
- 1 574 messages
I wouldn't use the cure if Wrex wasn't around to pass on his ideas of uniting and keeping the troops in check. Wrex = cure, No Wrex = no cure, they're not ready for peace.
#45
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 10:03
adam_grif
-
- Members
- 1 923 messages
Agreed, I'm not going to unleash the Krogan on the galaxy again. Unless of course the Rachni double-cross me, in which case my RenShep will cure it ASAP, then stockpile some antimatter fuel to load into bombs...
#46
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 01:04
Foolsfolly
-
- Members
- 4 770 messages
And then we uplift the vorcha and send them to fight the rachni.
It all works out.
It all works out.
Modifié par Foolsfolly, 27 avril 2010 - 01:10 .
#47
Guest_Elithranduil_*
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 01:25
Guest_Elithranduil_*
Guest_Elithranduil_*
-
- Guests
With the Reapers coming you need every species at its maximum potential. Cure the genophage. It's the right thing to do.
#48
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 01:30
adam_grif
-
- Members
- 1 923 messages
Elithranduil wrote...
With the Reapers coming you need every species at its maximum potential. Cure the genophage. It's the right thing to do.
To what end? What will the Krogan contribute to that? They're great foot soldiers, but does that really matter when the Reaper advantage is their superships?
#49
Guest_Elithranduil_*
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 01:34
Guest_Elithranduil_*
Guest_Elithranduil_*
-
- Guests
adam_grif wrote...
Elithranduil wrote...
With the Reapers coming you need every species at its maximum potential. Cure the genophage. It's the right thing to do.
To what end? What will the Krogan contribute to that? They're great foot soldiers, but does that really matter when the Reaper advantage is their superships?
Foot soldiers?
I'm talking about using them as ship-to-ship torpedos.
#50
Posté 27 avril 2010 - 01:37
Icinix
-
- Members
- 8 188 messages
Krogran can still fly and man ships. Not to mention they can build ships and repair them. Reapers will indoctrinate people before the main invasion so Krogan's can engage the indoctrinated in ground wars as well.
Modifié par Icinix, 27 avril 2010 - 01:37 .
