416 réponses à ce sujet

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...
Not it doesn't. Destroying the base is not rejecting both evils, it's chosing the greater one. The Reaper threat does not disappear if you stick your head in the sand and aren't willing to make the sacrifices to fight it.

And it doesn't magically get defeated if you save the base either. There is no guarantee keeping the base intact will somehow miraculously hold the key to defeating the reapers.

And it's not moral relativism. Moral relativism is saying that you don't have the right to pass judgment on other people if their morals disagree with yours.

Actually, moral relativism can and does apply to any doctrine that creates a choice between choosing the 'lesser' of two evils. In this case, your false dilemma that either you happily let the reapers exterminate everyone and everything (evil) or allow a set of circumstances that might ensure the former scenario doesn't come to pass, but guarantees humanity dominates and enslaves the rest of galaxy (lesser evil). Except both situations are evil, one happens to be the lesser of the two but is still nevertheless, evil.

Like I said, I'm not going to argue real life history or politics, so let's get back to my initial example. Suppose a very simple set up: An agent is coming that will destroy all life. You have the choice - destroy half of all life yourself in order to save the other half, or do nothing and watch everything be annihilated. No third option available. What would you do?

Again with the false dilemma. Either I have to commit mass murder by wiping out half of life myself for some vague notion that doing so will... magically stop this agent that wants to kill everyone anyway? Or I can do nothing, because apparently there is no third option... like oh I dunno, killing the agent WITHOUT committing mass murder myself. Thanks for creating such a ludicrous and simplistic ethical 'dilemma'.

[Shepard needs a Vacation]

Anyone ponder the idea that if you keep the base, in ME3 TIM will visit himself and become a agent for the reapers?

[Abriael_CG]

Darthnemesis2 wrote...
The Rachni and Krogan have already proved that they don't know how to play nice with the other species, why would you want to put them into a position where they can F everyone over again, while at the same time trying to fight off the Reapers?

Actually it's explained in multiple stages that the Krogan deserve a second chance and have acted that way in the past mostly because of external influences. The message from the rachni queen in ME2 lets you know that the rachni acted like they did because they were pushed to do so (probably by the reapers).
So yeah, everything leads to the conclusion that they're both valuable assets, and the chaotic stupid will probably regret destroying them.

jmood88 wrote...
I don't know where you got the idea
that the Reaper needed to be alive for you to use it's technology. If
you read the codex it tells you that the Turians used fragments of
Sovereign to create the Thanix cannon that's on the Normandy 2.

And in fact you have all the fragments you want. You just reduced the base to fragments.

[marshalleck]

dan107 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...
I've already posted on this before. As soon as it became apparent what the Citadel represents, the Council should have been relocated. There is no good reason for the head of galactic government to be sitting on a relay to dark space.

And it's not a question of blowing up the Citadel or the Relays. It's simply out of the question. A supernova merely pushed the Mu relay out of its normal location, but otherwise didn't phase it.

That the Council ignores the risk and maintains their wishful thinking and chooses to stay on the Citadel is pure folly.

I've also considered since I first completed ME1 that it may be the only way to stay safe is to abandon the relay network, although I think that's obviously less plausible given what we see in ME2.

In that case your position is logically consistent. I disagree with it, but it's consistent. However, I don't think that most people that destroyed the base realize that they then would have to abandon the Citadel and the relays for it to make sense. It's the run and hide option. Not the best one IMO, but a viable one.

Relocating the head of government isn't a "run and hide" argument. It's a reasonable precaution. We know that the Reapers create mass chaos and confusion by overruning the Citadel. Simple, clean, effective. Cut off the head.

Now why would you keep your command centers located there? The obvious response to the threat is to decentralize. And the Council, in their infinite stupidity, chose not to.

Modifié par marshalleck, 03 février 2010 - 11:18 .

[pelhikano]

If we don't have the base, what DO we have anyway? Does Shepard know of anything in-character that would help fighting the Reapers?

[marshalleck]

pelhikano wrote...

If we don't have the base, what DO we have anyway? Does Shepard know of anything in-character that would help fighting the Reapers?

EDI datamined the base but exactly what data she got and how much of it is unknown.

[Plomino]

The thing is. As Sovereign stated it, by voluntarily giving organics races their technology, the reapers know that theses species will developg along the path the reapers desire. By knowing that, they can adapt counter to species using their own technology...

I m pretty sure keeping the base has a ****ing drawback which will be obvious somewhere in Me3. As well as I am pretty sure that destroying it, destroy as well useful tool.

The thing is, what say that organics won't find a way oz their own to beat the crap out of the Reapers by themselves?
With knowledge of the reapers, they pretty much know what they re gonna fighting, and they can adapt to it.


As for the decentralization of the citadel government: no. Now that the Keepers are in check and under Citadel command, the Reapers cannot use them any more. The government has no reason to move since the Citadel control the mass relay. By using the citadel and keeping relays under control, they can slow down the Reapers if a war is waged.

Modifié par Plomino, 03 février 2010 - 11:21 .

[pelhikano]

Abriael_CG wrote...

And in fact you have all the fragments you want. You just reduced the base to fragments.

Which are now flying through space in tiny tiny bits, rather than being stuck inside the Citadel where you can at least retrieve them.

[Abriael_CG]

pelhikano wrote...

If we don't have the base, what DO we have anyway? Does Shepard know of anything in-character that would help fighting the Reapers?

EDI scanned the base's database and received all the available data on the reapers (that's the datapad Joker gives you in the end). Also, he has one of the most powerful starships in the galaxy, now piloted by the only unlocked AI in the council space.

pelhikano wrote...
Which are now flying through space in tiny
tiny bits, rather than being stuck inside the Citadel where you can at
least retrieve them.

I don't see where you get any information about their location. And even if you don't have the fragments themselves, you have the data. The cannon the Turians rebuilt was made with the data recovered from studying the fragments of the sovereign, not by reassembling parts of the sovereign.
You have the blueprints. EDI got them for you.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 03 février 2010 - 11:21 .

[pelhikano]

Plomino wrote...

With knowledge of the reapers, they pretty much know what they re gonna fighting, and they can adapt to it.

The knowledge isn't really much more than "we can barely kill one of these if it's shields somehow go down, which they usually don't". Not much to go on hehe.

[Caion]

Plomino wrote...

The only strange reaction could be Miranda's. Reaction which is explained by the fact that being loyal, she is now loyal to Shepard more than to the IM.

Not even her. If you take Miranda with you into the final battle (and she's loyal) she will say that after seeing what the Collectors were doing to humans with her own eyes, using that same technology would feel like a betrayal. TIM argues with her on that point. Her reaction makes sense.

[jmood88]

Plomino wrote...

The thing is. As Sovereign stated it, by voluntarily giving organics races their technology, the reapers know that theses species will developg along the path the reapers desire. By knowing that, they can adapt counter to species using their own technology...

I m pretty sure keeping the base has a ****ing drawback which will be obvious somewhere in Me3. As well as I am pretty sure that destroying it, destroy as well useful tool.

The thing is, what say that organics won't find a way oz their own to beat the crap out of the Reapers by themselves?
With knowledge of the reapers, they pretty much know what they re gonna fighting, and they can adapt to it.


As for the decentralization of the citadel government: no. Now that the Keepers are in check and under Citadel command, the Reapers cannot use them any more. The government has no reason to move since the Citadel control the mass relay. By using the citadel and keeping relays under control, they can slow down the Reapers if a war is waged.

I'm sure there's some type of catch, just like there will be some kind of consequence for getting rid of the only non-obliterated dead Reaper that the galaxy knows of. And this reaper wasn't handed over voluntarily, they didn't even expect anyone but the Collector's to come through the Omega-4 relay.

Modifié par jmood88, 03 février 2010 - 11:23 .

[pelhikano]

Abriael_CG wrote...

EDI scanned the base's database and received all the available data on the reapers (that's the datapad Joker gives you in the end). Also, he has one of the most powerful starships in the galaxy, now piloted by the only unlocked AI in the council space.

Ah right. I guess that will be enough to find a weakness in the Reapers somehow. How could it be otherwise.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I have argued this a million times in another thread. But to thsoe saying that REaper tech can't be used against the Reapers. Well think about what the Protheans did. They basically did a huge FU to the Reapers by using their own tech against them. Don't read too much into what Sovereign was saying. What he meant was that the organics rely on the citadel and the technology of the mass relay yes. That doesn't mean that the technology itself can't be used against the Reapers.

Sorry I won't go into too much details, as I already did in anothe thread.

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...
And it doesn't magically get defeated if you save the base either. There is no guarantee keeping the base intact will somehow miraculously hold the key to defeating the reapers.

No guarantee, but knowing nothing else about the situation, studying the advanced technology of your enemy gives you a greater chance at victory than not studying it.

Actually, moral relativism can and does apply to any doctrine that creates a choice between choosing the 'lesser' of two evils. In this case, your false dilemma that either you happily let the reapers exterminate everyone and everything (evil) or allow a set of circumstances that might ensure the former scenario doesn't come to pass, but guarantees humanity dominates and enslaves the rest of galaxy (lesser evil). Except both situations are evil, one happens to be the lesser of the two but is still nevertheless, evil.

Like I said, I'm not going to argue real life history or politics, so let's get back to my initial example. Suppose a very simple set up: An agent is coming that will destroy all life. You have the choice - destroy half of all life yourself in order to save the other half, or do nothing and watch everything be annihilated. No third option available. What would you do?

Again with the false dilemma. Either I have to commit mass murder by wiping out half of life myself for some vague notion that doing so will... magically stop this agent that wants to kill everyone anyway? Or I can do nothing, because apparently there is no third option... like oh I dunno, killing the agent WITHOUT committing mass murder myself. Thanks for creating such a ludicrous and simplistic ethical 'dilemma'.

Well of course it's simplistic because I'm trying to get at a core principle here. And it cannot be false, since it's my dilemma. Unless it's logically inconsistent I can suppose whatever givens I want.

But what are you trying to say though by calling it false? Are you arguing that there can never be a situation where your only choice is between a greater evil and a lesser one?

[addiction21]

If the base was there to make soylent green waffles I could see a reason to keep it.

[mentosman8]

Giving the Collector base to Cerberus=the Salarian's giving nukes to the Krogan IMO. Taking extremely advanced-beyond-your-time technology does not end well, and hampers development. Not to mention, TIM is way too shady. Seemed to know the Collector's were behind the abductions, knows the Reaper's are real, knew the ship was a trap but sent Shepard anyway, just happened to know of undeniable proof of the Reaper threat that could have been used to force the council's hand and didn't mention it... As I played through I got more and more feeling that he wasn't what he seemed. Sure, he brought Shepard back to life, but it sure seems like that lines up with what the Collectors wanted. I didn't trust him once during the game, and can't think of any reason him getting the base would be a good idea.

[dan107]

mentosman8 wrote...

Giving the Collector base to Cerberus=the Salarian's giving nukes to the Krogan IMO. Taking extremely advanced-beyond-your-time technology does not end well, and hampers development.

If they didn't uplift the Krogan, there's a good possiblity that the galaxy would be ruled by the Rachni. Everyone arguing against the ends justifying the means does not seem to understand that there are some ends that need to be achieved at any cost. The very survival of your species is one of them.

[Tleining]

abandoning the citadel would be problematic. The reapers are returning, if they gain control of the citadel, they control the entire relay network, and could simply wipe out one species after another. They have to be defeated before that.



@ dan107

about that agent and the 2 choices without a third one? I would choose option three, try my best to fight against that agent. if that leads to the destruction of the entire world, okay, so be it.



However: in the case of Mass Effect: Giving TIM the base would probably save the world, but it would also mean human/cerberus dominance over the galaxy. And humanity would learn from the technology found there, develop into a second version of reapers and start the cycle all over again. Legion actually made a good statement about that. The Heretics where following the Reapers, so that they could give them a future, the geth want to build their own future.



And option two would be to bring the proof to the council, and finally start preparing for the war.

[marshalleck]

dan107 wrote...

mentosman8 wrote...

Giving the Collector base to Cerberus=the Salarian's giving nukes to the Krogan IMO. Taking extremely advanced-beyond-your-time technology does not end well, and hampers development.

If they didn't uplift the Krogan, there's a good possiblity that the galaxy would be ruled by the Rachni. Everyone arguing against the ends justifying the means does not seem to understand that there are some ends that need to be achieved at any cost. The very survival of your species is one of them.

The reason the Reaper base existed was to convert organic species into Reapers.

How is continuing that furthering the survival of your species?

[KnightofPhoenix]

marshalleck wrote...

dan107 wrote...

mentosman8 wrote...

Giving the Collector base to Cerberus=the Salarian's giving nukes to the Krogan IMO. Taking extremely advanced-beyond-your-time technology does not end well, and hampers development.

If they didn't uplift the Krogan, there's a good possiblity that the galaxy would be ruled by the Rachni. Everyone arguing against the ends justifying the means does not seem to understand that there are some ends that need to be achieved at any cost. The very survival of your species is one of them.

The reason the Reaper base existed was to convert organic species into Reapers.

How is continuing that furthering the survival of your species?

Who said anythign about continuing that?

The collector base is a factory that builds reapers. That means it is equipped with the proper facilities and the technological know-how that is purely 100%, secret, Reaper technology. How can anyone not want to study that?
Studying how a reaper is built means uncovering alot of their secrets and hopefully weaknesses.

IT is highly unlikely that TIM will produce a reaper. It would draw too much attention to himself and he seemingly knows what the reapers are. He wouldn't take the risk. His intentions are probably to study it and reverse engineer whatever technology that can be used. Unless Bioware wants to pull off the classic stupid comic villain thing.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 février 2010 - 11:39 .

[marshalleck]

Tleining wrote...

abandoning the citadel would be problematic. The reapers are returning, if they gain control of the citadel, they control the entire relay network, and could simply wipe out one species after another. They have to be defeated before that.

Indeed, but it would be prudent to ensure that a clear chain of command can still exist, communicate, and operate effectively should the Citadel be lost. You don't just say "yeah, that would be really bad, so I'll hope it doesn't happen and won't plan for any worst-case scenarios."

[dan107]

marshalleck wrote...

dan107 wrote...

mentosman8 wrote...

Giving the Collector base to Cerberus=the Salarian's giving nukes to the Krogan IMO. Taking extremely advanced-beyond-your-time technology does not end well, and hampers development.

If they didn't uplift the Krogan, there's a good possiblity that the galaxy would be ruled by the Rachni. Everyone arguing against the ends justifying the means does not seem to understand that there are some ends that need to be achieved at any cost. The very survival of your species is one of them.

The reason the Reaper base existed was to convert organic species into Reapers.

How is continuing that furthering the survival of your species?

No one is saying (at least I don't think) that you use the base to continue building a hostile Reaper. You keep it to at least study and understand the technology that's about to be used to wipe you out. A possible implication of keeping the base is that it could be used to construct a friendly Reaper-like entity to combat the Reapers at a great cost of human lives.

Whether or not it's worth it to construct a Reaper is argueable, but simply destroying the base and thus giving up your best hope of understanding your enemy is insane IMO.

[roboman7527]

i started off intending to kill the collector base as was the story line right up until the end, and in the end i destroyed it...

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...
No guarantee, but knowing nothing else about the situation, studying the advanced technology of your enemy gives you a greater chance at victory than not studying it.

The sole purpose for that base to exist is to turn human beings into milkshakes, because that's (apparently) how you make reapers. Without even needing to go into how this technology isn't exactly useful or ethical to implement, as other posters have already pointed out, EDI has already datamined whatever soft intel that could be gleaned from the base, so again it's a false dilemma (the choice between saving or destroying the base). Whatever intel can be gotten has been gotten, anything else - a large part of which is the infrastructure - isn't worth keeping (unless you seriously think the key to stopping the reapers is to make a set of reapers yourself to send against them... which would cost billions of lives... and don't be too surprised if they end up joining forces with the reapers that are coming).

TIM wants to keep the base intact because there might be hidden secrets. Five seconds from the end of the match he calls you up and wants to change the game. No way. He recruited me to stop the Collectors - this is how to stop them.

Well of course it's simplistic because I'm trying to get at a core principle here. And it cannot be false, since it's my dilemma. Unless it's logically inconsistent I can suppose whatever givens I want.

But what are you trying to say though by calling it false? Are you arguing that there can never be a situation where your only choice is between a greater evil and a lesser one?

I am arguing from a consequentionist standpoint - the outcome is what is important. Your scenario gives only two outcomes, where everyone dies or half die to save the other half (but you have to kill that half). Simplistically, the choice is obvious - but as I laboured to point out before, choosing the lesser of two evils isn't a 'moral' choice, you're still choosing an evil option. And in order to make a decision like that, the outcomes have to be certain - which is impossible to determine in a real life sitatuation. Operating under the assumption that to any given scenario there can ONLY BE a choice between the lesser of two evils IS a false dilemma, however. The more simplistic the scenario only serves to limit the options, the less useful an ethical examination becomes.

Modifié par stofsk, 03 février 2010 - 11:43 .