416 réponses à ce sujet

[pelhikano]

The decision to keep the base is a scientific one rather than political I think.

[Stofsk]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

We can argue about good and evil all day and that wouldn't matter. We all have different definitions. Unless you want us to argue for years.

That's a relativist standpoint. If you were a consequentialist you wouldn't say that.

And as the issue isn't obvious and as I am arguing about the positive benefits that the base might provide that surpass the risks imo, then I am arguing from the same position.
Since we do not know the consequences for sure, we can argue this all day and it wouldn't matter.

From what I saw of the base, it had nothing redeeming about it.

Consequentalism is explained by Moore in Principia Ethica. and he says that the only way to judge the ethical aspect of an action is to anaylse its consequences, once they are clear and done. Other than that, it's msotly speculation.

That which provides a good outcome is the moral choice. You don't need hindsight, but obviously hindsight is 20/20. Of course, speculation might show that destroying the base or keeping it intact might have unforseen consequences. You can only operate on what you know. Here's what we know: EDI has gotten intel by datamining, the only other things we see are the infrastructure used to create a reaper, and the methods of this construction which involve sacrificing millions, maybe more, lives. You are speculating that there is anything more useful in the base that can tell us about the reapers. Since all we have to go on is what we see, we have to weigh that with whatever unforseen consequences that may arise. You want to take risks, fine, but don't take stupid risks. Considering the Collectors were acting at the behest of the reapers it is a fair assumption to make there is some kind of communication two-way going on. We don't need proof of that, it's a logical assumption to make. But as 3rd party players, we do have proof of that. Nevertheless, keeping the base intact may yield useful intel, or it may not. But it can also be used by the reapers to subtly indoctrinate whatever salvage team is there, if you elect to not destroy it.

That's speculation too, but it's a forseeable consequence. The reapers don't have to be active in the area for indoctrination to take place. I doubt that larval reaper was truly destroyed, just 'stopped'. To destroy it would need more firepower than you can muster using small arms. And the possibility there might be some booby trap or reaper influence is too much for me to risk, considering the fuzzy possibility of there being more worthwhile intel than I already have.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dragoncloud wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

The only way to study would be to make little bits of working reaper with that tech... which requires organics... and even a fully shredded reaper still retains some of its mindcontrolling functions.... yeah... good luck with that, if anything those that kept the base will have a nice mission clearing out that base and finally destroying it.


No matter how it turns out in me3 though, i feel like they'll need seperate disks just for some of the different major choices that were made.

How did you reach the conclusion that the only way to study the reapers is to create one? I don't know how you came up with that.
So the only way to study reapers is to create one. But don't I have to know what the reapers are so that I can create one in the first place?
Completely illogical argument you have there there.

There are schematics. Blueprints. Data. Technological know how. A Reaper is a techological marvel, it isn't built simply like that, without the proper facilites and technology that can be studied without being used.

I doubt Bioware will do anything like that. And if the Reaper was able to use indoctrination, it would have tried to do it to Shepard. It didn't. It was at a too early stage. Heck it couldn't even talk.

And yes I hope they can make 3 disks.

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...
Keeping the base intact isn't a final solution. Infrastructure is still intact, which means the bast can be taken off you in a counter-attack. There may be booby traps too, hidden defences. Harbinger has a direct line on the base, which nobody knows about (but we as removed 3rd party players do). In character, the risks are too great.

Risks are too great? Compared with the risk of going there in the first place? Compared with the risk of total extinction?

But if the means are evil, or immoral, then the outcome will be immoral.

Alright. classic example. 1921, you're in a room with a young Hitler before he committed any serious crime. You know what he indends to do and you have a gun. Do you pull the trigger? Is the outcome of preventing one of the greatest mass murders in human history evil because it required an evil action to achieve?
 

Hardly. That would make the only moral person in the world a person who can see the future. You don't need to reduce uncertainty to make moral decisions, because life isn't like that, nor will it ever be.

You don't need to reduce uncertainty to make moral decisions, you need to reduce it to analyze accurately a person's morality. How can you assign morality to an action if the person making it has no idea what its outcome will be? Consider the following situations:

1. You are in a room. There is a button on the table. You can press it or not press it. You know nothing of the consequences. Obviously no morality can be assigned to pressing or not pressing the button.

2. You are in a room with a button. If you press it, there is a 50/50 chance that 1 person will die. If you don't press it, there's a 50/50 chance that 10 people will die.

3. Same set up. Press the button, 100% chance that 1 person will die. Don't press it, 100% chance that 10 people will die.

I would argue that the 3rd example is the clearest way of determining a person's morality, and whether or not he believes that the end justifies the means.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Kwonnern wrote...

Thaddeus Mynor wrote...
I think the most ridiculous thing about choosing
to save or destroy the collector's base is that it seems like the whole game is
geared toward you destroying it.

Well, i am sure that if you used that save (where you kept the base) it will totally change the ME3-experience should you desire to import.

Yep. Like the major impact saving the Council had in ME 2.

Wait wait saving the council didn't have a.. oh I see what you did there!

[Stofsk]

jmood88 wrote...

Mallissin wrote...

stofsk wrote...
False analogy. There isn't a dead reaper sitting in the middle of the presidium, but there IS one sitting in the Collector base, and there IS a direct link between the Collector base and Harbinger.

Uh, actually...there was a dead reaper sitting in the presidium. We called it Sovereign. Turians were able to make a fantastic weapon that saved your ass from the wreckage splashed all over the inside of the Citadel.

Checkmate, my friend. CHECKMATE!

I already brought that up and he ignored it.

Ignored what? Sovereign is in pieces, he cannot be a threat. Pointing out how the Thanix cannon was developed doesn't address the point about the Collector base at all. We know from the cutscenes that Harbinger was in direct control of the Collector general at all times, meaning there is a direct communications link between the base and Harbinger. How about you guys stop ignoring THAT.

[pelhikano]

Even if they indoctrinate a bunch of scientists in the base though, what of it really? They are "right now" flying toward the galaxy to arrive, maybe, in a couple of years. Once they have reached the habitated regions of the galaxy the war starts, and it seems clear to me that nobody has the firepower to stop them head-on. So what do you do meanwhile? We need more information of any kind about this unbelievably powerful and merciless enemy!



Inside the base are the remains (possibly only "knocked out") of Arnold the Baby Reaper, incontrovertible proof that this threat is totally and utterly real, as well as now the corpses of ten thousands of humans locked into pods that were not liquified yet. If the council STILL keeps doubting your words, let them see this. I hate the bring up the dumb WW2 comparisons, but the base is in a way a combination concentration camp/medical experiment center/nuclear bomb factory. You don't destroy it alone for the reason that it is EVIDENCE of unspeakable crimes. You CLOSE it, but you do not just blow it up no matter how angry you are what happened there.

[KnightofPhoenix]

stofsk wrote...

And as the issue isn't obvious and as I am arguing about the positive benefits that the base might provide that surpass the risks imo, then I am arguing from the same position.
Since we do not know the consequences for sure, we can argue this all day and it wouldn't matter.

From what I saw of the base, it had nothing redeeming about it.

I did see very redeemming things about it. And the potential that can be unlocked.

stofsk wrote...

Consequentalism is explained by Moore in Principia Ethica. and he says that the only way to judge the ethical aspect of an action is to anaylse its consequences, once they are clear and done. Other than that, it's msotly speculation.

That which provides a good outcome is the moral choice. You don't need hindsight, but obviously hindsight is 20/20. Of course, speculation might show that destroying the base or keeping it intact might have unforseen consequences. You can only operate on what you know. Here's what we know: EDI has gotten intel by datamining, the only other things we see are the infrastructure used to create a reaper, and the methods of this construction which involve sacrificing millions, maybe more, lives. You are speculating that there is anything more useful in the base that can tell us about the reapers. Since all we have to go on is what we see, we have to weigh that with whatever unforseen consequences that may arise. You want to take risks, fine, but don't take stupid risks. Considering the Collectors were acting at the behest of the reapers it is a fair assumption to make there is some kind of communication two-way going on. We don't need proof of that, it's a logical assumption to make. But as 3rd party players, we do have proof of that. Nevertheless, keeping the base intact may yield useful intel, or it may not. But it can also be used by the reapers to subtly indoctrinate whatever salvage team is there, if you elect to not destroy it.

That's speculation too, but it's a forseeable consequence. The reapers don't have to be active in the area for indoctrination to take place. I doubt that larval reaper was truly destroyed, just 'stopped'. To destroy it would need more firepower than you can muster using small arms. And the possibility there might be some booby trap or reaper influence is too much for me to risk, considering the fuzzy possibility of there being more worthwhile intel than I already have.

- EDI didn't take all the data. We don't know that.
- The base can have more useful intel. We don't know, which is why we study it. That's the scientific method. We don't just assume.
- I can see that the base can be useful. I only need to study it to find out whether it's true or not.
- Constrcuting a reaper requires technological know how and Reaper technoloigical secrets. Uncovering them is essential. Whether they are there or not is speculation. That's why I keep the base to find out if we can learn something or not.
- War is about risks. It's not a stupid risk. Destroying the base and saying that we don't need it just like that, is more of a stupid risk.
- The Collectors are engineered to serve the Reapers, that we know 100%. There is no evidence of indoctrination takign place. Speculation.

Finally:
Moore: "It is plain that we cannot hope to prove among all the actions, which it is possible for us to perform on every occasion, will produce the best total results: to discover our duty, in this strict sense, is impossible".

So yes. To determine whether an action as complex as this is truly ethical or not, from a consequentialist pov, you need to study the consequences before truly knowing if an action is unethical or ethical. Otherwise, you are speculating. As am I. It's not forseaable. It's possible consequences. And both are pertinent speculations and it will depend on perspective. I see more benefits to be gained than risks.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 04 février 2010 - 12:51 .

[pelhikano]

Did EDI have an opinion on keeping the base? Just wondering.

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...

jmood88 wrote...

Mallissin wrote...

stofsk wrote...
False analogy. There isn't a dead reaper sitting in the middle of the presidium, but there IS one sitting in the Collector base, and there IS a direct link between the Collector base and Harbinger.

Uh, actually...there was a dead reaper sitting in the presidium. We called it Sovereign. Turians were able to make a fantastic weapon that saved your ass from the wreckage splashed all over the inside of the Citadel.

Checkmate, my friend. CHECKMATE!

I already brought that up and he ignored it.

Ignored what? Sovereign is in pieces, he cannot be a threat. Pointing out how the Thanix cannon was developed doesn't address the point about the Collector base at all. We know from the cutscenes that Harbinger was in direct control of the Collector general at all times, meaning there is a direct communications link between the base and Harbinger. How about you guys stop ignoring THAT.

There's a direct link between Harbinger and the Collectors not the base. The Collectors are now dead. Furthermore we know that the collectors were Protheans that were both genetically and cybernetically altered by the Reapers, thus we can suppose that such alterations are required for full control. Any human within the base will not have had such alterations, and thus will not be subject to such control.

Furthermore, the effects of the indoctrination are obvious, so the base could be studied by sending in small teams and observing them. If they show signs of indoctrination, take appropriate measures, analyze the team, develop a possible countermeasure, repeat. No one is saying you just waltz into the base to have a picnic. You very carefully and methodically study it, realizing full well the risks and dangers. And the potential rewards.

[FearTheLiving]

I'm guessing you didn't take Zaeed with you? He tells you you should keep the stuff.

[Mallissin]

stofsk wrote...
Ignored what? Sovereign is in pieces, he cannot be a threat. Pointing out how the Thanix cannon was developed doesn't address the point about the Collector base at all. We know from the cutscenes that Harbinger was in direct control of the Collector general at all times, meaning there is a direct communications link between the base and Harbinger. How about you guys stop ignoring THAT.

The Collectors died. Big blue boom. Nothing for Harbinger to telepresense into anymore.

And I don't know about you, but I pretty much blew that human reaper's brains out. It ain't "dreaming" like the derelict reaper. No element zero core, no brain, no problem.

I think the coast is clear. Bring in the scientists while I distract the alarmists!

*puts Legion infront of stofsk* LOOK! A GETH!

[dan107]

pelhikano wrote...
Inside the base are the remains (possibly only "knocked out") of Arnold the Baby Reaper, incontrovertible proof that this threat is totally and utterly real, as well as now the corpses of ten thousands of humans locked into pods that were not liquified yet. If the council STILL keeps doubting your words, let them see this.

Another great point! Destroy the base, destroy all evidence of the Reapers. If you don't trust Cerberus to protect the galaxy, then your ONLY options are the Council and the Alliance, neither of which will do anything without proof. Destroy the base and you have a powerless Cerberus, and an unwilling Alliance and Council. Who's left to fight the Reapers? Joker and the rest of them weirdos?

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...

stofsk wrote...
Keeping the base intact isn't a final solution. Infrastructure is still intact, which means the bast can be taken off you in a counter-attack. There may be booby traps too, hidden defences. Harbinger has a direct line on the base, which nobody knows about (but we as removed 3rd party players do). In character, the risks are too great.

Risks are too great? Compared with the risk of going there in the first place? Compared with the risk of total extinction?

Destroying the base won't impact on the risk the reapers already possess. As someone else has already posted, just because its possible there might be some clue gleaned from the base towards defeating the reapers, doesn't make it practical.

Alright. classic example. 1921, you're in a room with a young Hitler before he committed any serious crime. You know what he indends to do and you have a gun. Do you pull the trigger? Is the outcome of preventing one of the greatest mass murders in human history evil because it required an evil action to achieve?

That question asks two things: is it ever right to murder someone before they are guilty of a crime, and can you change historical causation?

What do you want me to say? I am opposed to the death penalty, and I'm even more opposed to executing someone who hasn't even committed a crime. On the other hand, leaving aside all practical considerations of how it would be virtually impossible to find one Austrian failed painter in all of Europe, even if you could break causality, the devil I know isn't better than the devil I don't. Solely to prevent his rise to leadership, I would roll the dice. Having said that, doing so is no guarantee WW2 won't happen. It might still happen, it might even be worse.
 

You don't need to reduce uncertainty to make moral decisions, you need to reduce it to analyze accurately a person's morality. How can you assign morality to an action if the person making it has no idea what its outcome will be? Consider the following situations:

1. You are in a room. There is a button on the table. You can press it or not press it. You know nothing of the consequences. Obviously no morality can be assigned to pressing or not pressing the button.

2. You are in a room with a button. If you press it, there is a 50/50 chance that 1 person will die. If you don't press it, there's a 50/50 chance that 10 people will die.

3. Same set up. Press the button, 100% chance that 1 person will die. Don't press it, 100% chance that 10 people will die.

I would argue that the 3rd example is the clearest way of determining a person's morality, and whether or not he believes that the end justifies the means.

You suck at making hypothetical moral dilemmas. Sorry, but I have to say that.

[Mallissin]

stofsk wrote...
You suck at making hypothetical moral dilemmas. Sorry, but I have to say that.

As a Paragon, you seem to have a lot of trust issues. Up until you met Legion, you didn't realize there were two factions of the Geth yet I bet you helped them even though you spent most of the first game killing them.

Up until you met Miranda/Jack, you didn't realize good people worked for Cerberus but you still won't trust the organization enough to do the right thing when it's necessary?

Holding kind of a double standard? Trust aliens more than humans?

[dan107]

stofsk wrote...
Destroying the base won't impact on the risk the reapers already possess. As someone else has already posted, just because its possible there might be some clue gleaned from the base towards defeating the reapers, doesn't make it practical.

Just because there is some risk associated with exploring it, doesn't make it prohibitive.

That question asks two things: is it ever right to murder someone before they are guilty of a crime, and can you change historical causation?

What do you want me to say? I am opposed to the death penalty, and I'm even more opposed to executing someone who hasn't even committed a crime. On the other hand, leaving aside all practical considerations of how it would be virtually impossible to find one Austrian failed painter in all of Europe, even if you could break causality, the devil I know isn't better than the devil I don't. Solely to prevent his rise to leadership, I would roll the dice. Having said that, doing so is no guarantee WW2 won't happen. It might still happen, it might even be worse.

So would that be an evil action? And would that action, done for the sake greater good (whether successful or not), make you an evil person? (Incidentally, I chose 1921 for a reason. That was the year Hitler had become leader of the **** party and made his views publically known. You'd have reason to believe that if he was successful in achieving his goals he would become a very dangerous man.)
 

You suck at making hypothetical moral dilemmas. Sorry, but I have to say that.

No you don't. There's no reason to say something like that other than to be rude. At any rate, that particular example wasn't about the dilemma itself, it was to show that adding uncertainty to the outcome adds uncertainty to your judgement of a person's morality.

Modifié par dan107, 04 février 2010 - 01:11 .

[Stofsk]

Mallissin wrote...

As a Paragon, you seem to have a lot of trust issues. Up until you met Legion, you didn't realize there were two factions of the Geth yet I bet you helped them even though you spent most of the first game killing them.

I killed them, actually. Nothing at all to suggest the heretics won't arrive at the same conclusion a second time.

Up until you met Miranda/Jack, you didn't realize good people worked for Cerberus but you still won't trust the organization enough to do the right thing when it's necessary?

Miranda was directly responsible for bringing me back to life, and Jacob doesn't trust Cerberus either, so what's your point? Jacob is in bed with Cerberus, and he tells me he wouldn't trust TIM either.

Holding kind of a double standard? Trust aliens more than humans?

Not at all. Cerberus doesn't have a good track record as per the first game. It's amusing to see you make assumptions however.

[Stofsk]

dan107 wrote...

Just because there is some risk associated with exploring it, doesn't make it prohibitive.

Then we weigh risk to different calibrations. Continuing this discussion is pointless.

So would that be an evil action?

Murdering someone before they're guilty of an action? Yes. Damn straight it is.

And would that action, done for the sake greater good (whether successful or not), make you an evil person?

Yes.

(Incidentally, I chose 1921 for a reason. That was the year Hitler had become leader of the **** party and made his views publically known. You'd have reason to believe that if he was successful in achieving his goals he would become a very dangerous man.)

Which is a different question based on historical causation. I already said I'd rather slay the devil I know and roll the dice that history is averted. I would have no illusions as to what I did to achieve that, however. And I would be conscious of the fact that anything I do may be useless or worse than useless too. To do such an act isn't a simple question, but a heavy one.
 

No you don't. There's no reason to say something like that other than to be rude.

Cry me a river. None of your hypothetical dilemmas have been realistic at all. Going back in time to slay Hitler? Push this button and 1 person will die, if you don't 10 people will die? Moral math is all it is.

[pelhikano]

Can we please stop with the insults and flaming now?

[jmood88]

Dragoncloud wrote...

dan107 wrote...

TheRastapopolous wrote...
how most people could even consider destroying that base is beyound me.

I think it's subconscious meta-gaming. People know that it's a game and that it will end well even if you do all the "nice" things, that's why they throw away the base. However, if you were really in Shepard's shoes, and really were facing a very serious possibility of human extinction, you'd have to be out of your f*cking mind to throw out your only know hope for salvation. Hell, I'd personally feed half the humans in the galaxy into that thing if it meant saving the other half.

Didn't sovereign say the reapers liked it when species followed the set path of technological advancement that the reapers set out for them? Didn't the whole Heretic thing with the Geth happen because half of them were all 'yey we get free tech from an evil overlord' and the other half were 'we want to develop our own tech to come to a similar or maybe same outcome but with our own science not some free handout'.

I blew the base because many harvesting cycles showed that using tech laid out by the reapers is a bad thing (sure the new guns on your ship worked wonders on a collector ship, which isnt the same as a reaper, probably not as strong either, most of its functsion relied on a massive 1 hit kill cannon and massive transport, nothing defensive.)
On the other hand Legion's talk about the reprogrammed heretics having a chance to go heretic again (and even having spies amongst the non-heretics even though legion thought it to be impossible) combined with the whole quarian vs geth war brewing, i figured i'd blow up the heretics, getting rid of a ton of geth making them more prone to a peacefull surrender if not peacefull cease-fire with their creators (which if you talk to legion is more then possible from the geth point of view, the geth only acted in self defence, they still don't see why their creators striked at them). Worst case i'll have a weakened geth force going up against the full quarian fleet, having the quarians incur fewer losses. Sure it gave me renegade points, but so did playing bad cop, the rachni choice in me1 turned out to be a good one, reprogramming (brainwashing essentially) millions of geth, that retain the knowledge of being reprogrammed isn't really beneficial for relations.

I'm surprised TIM didn't plant a killswitch in shep though (or did he?). I actually see TIM using the base to make a reaper to fight the reapers (because every reaper is a race/a nation, so even if the whole of humanity is synthesised into a reaper, it still represents humanity),  probably even finding a way to make him the 'dominant' mind of the whole thing.

Also on the 'hidden relay' thing the reapers might use, i don't think they have anything like that, but i don't doubt they can travel a lot faster then the current space faring species. (don't forget that they each have a huge mass core, if they can somehow link them all thats a lot of energy they can use for travelling)



Only thing that made me think twice about destroying was that TIM's reasoning is the same one Mordin used for keeping the genophage research data from his loyalty quest.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

The only way to study would be to make little bits of working reaper with that tech... which requires organics... and even a fully shredded reaper still retains some of its mindcontrolling functions.... yeah... good luck with that, if anything those that kept the base will have a nice mission clearing out that base and finally destroying it.


No matter how it turns out in me3 though, i feel like they'll need seperate disks just for some of the different major choices that were made.

Sovereign wasn't referring to using a dead Reaper to further humanity/other race's technology, it was talking about using the Citadel and relays to go where the Reapers wanted them to go.

[jmood88]

stofsk wrote...

jmood88 wrote...

Mallissin wrote...

stofsk wrote...
False analogy. There isn't a dead reaper sitting in the middle of the presidium, but there IS one sitting in the Collector base, and there IS a direct link between the Collector base and Harbinger.

Uh, actually...there was a dead reaper sitting in the presidium. We called it Sovereign. Turians were able to make a fantastic weapon that saved your ass from the wreckage splashed all over the inside of the Citadel.

Checkmate, my friend. CHECKMATE!

I already brought that up and he ignored it.

Ignored what? Sovereign is in pieces, he cannot be a threat. Pointing out how the Thanix cannon was developed doesn't address the point about the Collector base at all. We know from the cutscenes that Harbinger was in direct control of the Collector general at all times, meaning there is a direct communications link between the base and Harbinger. How about you guys stop ignoring THAT.

The Reapers created the Collectors, I'm sure that they made some way for them to control them and/or do what they wanted, just like they did with the Keepers.

[dan107]

Then we weigh risk to different calibrations. Continuing this discussion is pointless.

Agreed.

So would that be an evil action?

Murdering someone before they're guilty of an action? Yes. Damn straight it is.

And would that action, done for the sake greater good (whether successful or not), make you an evil person?

Yes.

So to bring this back to what you said earlier "if the means are evil, or immoral, then the outcome will be immoral." If you maintain that, as well as that killing Hitler to prevent his murders is evil, you are committed to the position that the outcome of preventing Hitler's mass murders is evil as well. Obviously that's not the case. Your position is logically inconsistent.

Cry me a river. None of your hypothetical dilemmas have been realistic at all. Going back in time to slay Hitler? Push this button and 1 person will die, if you don't 10 people will die? Moral math is all it is.

What's stopping you from presenting a more realistic dilemma that's applicable to the situation?

Modifié par dan107, 04 février 2010 - 01:43 .

[senojones]

However, if you were really in Shepard's shoes, and really were facing a very serious possibility of human extinction, you'd have to be out of your f*cking mind to throw out your only know hope for salvation. Hell, I'd personally feed half the humans in the galaxy into that thing if it meant saving the other half.

I would blow it up without hesitation, I won't let fear dictate who I am. You can call me crazy or stupid all you want, but you just sound pitiful. At least have the decency to clearly add yourself to that list of human sacrifices.



I gotta admit, its surprising to see so much support for keeping the Collector base with such cold logic, the lack of basic morals and lack of faith in Shepard + his team is kinda sad. If survival is the only thing you care about when threatened of existence in the galaxy, then I feel sorry for you.



Talk about logic all you want, you'll still sound like a coward to me.

[Stofsk]

jmood88 wrote...

The Reapers created the Collectors, I'm sure that they made some way for them to control them and/or do what they wanted, just like they did with the Keepers.

It could also be a super powerful form of indoctrination. Which we already know can enslave asari matriarchs that are actually trying to resist it, and who are some of the most powerful individuals in the galaxy.

Look this argument is tiring. And we're all going around in circles. It's obvious we're approaching this issue from different angles and arriving at different conclusions.

[Tooneyman]

There is a reason we have a renegade group in Mass effect and they have support from people two come on everyone lets do this. Keep the story to options not just one duh!