132 réponses à ce sujet

[Andy_Haugh]

The Rachni are too dangerous to be left alive, so they should remain a dead race. I told her to make her peace with the galaxy.

[beautifvl_flaw]

With my 'canon' Shep, I killed her. My main reasoning was that the beasts aggravated my arachnophobia.

[Mnemnosyne]

With the knowledge Shepard has at the moment the decision has to be made, I have never found it anything but grossly irresponsible to let her go, and therefore I have always killed her.



Shepard is making a decision that will risk trillions of lives (of existing, living people, not hypothetical future people). All the knowledge she has at that point indicate that the rachni are an extremely hostile race of beings that posed a serious danger to the Council races, and that they have the ability to reproduce tremendously fast (especially true if you've talked to Yaroslev Tartakovsky before seeing the queen, he explains just how fast a single queen can get a full colony up and running).



Beyond that, there's no way to know whether she's telling the truth or not. Even if we were certain she was being honest (which we're not, we have every reason to believe that she will say whatever she calculates to have the highest chance of getting Shepard to let her go), she has no way to guarantee the actions of her potential descendants in perpetuity. Similarly, the 'they were indoctrinated' thing is impossible to verify, and considering that she had been dealing with Benezia, who, right there in front of her, just explained indoctrination to some degree, could just as logically be a convenient excuse she came up with on the spot, and made up a story to make it sound like her ancestors are indoctrinated. Again, at the time and with the available information, Shepard doesn't know.



In the end, you are trusting the safety of the galaxy on a brief conversation with an individual who has every reason to decieve you and no reason to be honest if her intentions are actually hostile. There is often a damn good chance in many situations that if you trust someone, it will come back and bite you in the ass. When trusting someone and having them betray you affects only you, that's one thing. However, when it could lead to a war that may cause the deaths of trillions of people you are sworn to protect, there is no excuse for taking even a tiny risk, much less the size of risk that releasing the rachni queen on her own recognizance poses.

[VutaatVerd]

I saved the Rachni Queen, hopefully help Wrex and the Krogan with the genophage. I see the Krogan as easier to control than the Rachni, but with remaining questions I guess we will have to wait until ME3 is released.

[Leonhartx]

I saved her, and based on what I got from the asari in ME2 it was a good decision. Although the first time it was a difficult decision because she was using a dead or near dead asari to communicate which that alone is creepy, second shes a giant spider thing with sharp claws and can spit acid, and can re-populate in the shortest amount of time. She seemed legit, and I knew that if she decided to go back on her word, I would just kill her... with my gun... like always.



If I can take down a reaper, I can take down an army of giant monsters np.

[Slayer299]

By what you find out in ME2, saving her seems to have been a good decision, at least so far. There is that news report when you're in Omega about 'unknown ships' that were later identified as Rachni Scout ships and when spotted they retreated. So even with the Rachni Queen's message to you on Illium it makes me worry some when I hear that.

[Aetas Mutuo]

Always let her live, and here are my throughts as to why:

When I saw this in ME1, I thought of 3 possibilites. Now after playing ME2, there are 2 possibilities left.



1) Nothing happens no matter you let her live or not. *Obviously with the events in ME2, this option is out*

2) She is an ally in ME3 and you get an Army of bad-ass bug warriors. It would be fun to see a a bunch of rachni shredding a reaper ship.

3) She turns on you and you get tons of experience and extra playtime to monkey stomp an army of space bugs.



If you kill her, you wornt get either of the last two options.

[Slayer299]

True and either way it should be fun! >

[AsheraII]

Always saved her, for very simple reasons:

1) If she's true to her word, then I'll have extra troops, technology or whatever in sequels

2) If she's lying, I'll end up with interresting new missions and assignments for more experience & loot in sequels.



So in my opinion, letting her live is a win/win



And even for a renegade Shep, I t think destroying an entire species is a bit overdone.Things would've been easier if there had been some sane live Protheans around for questioning as well. But maybe I read just too many Ender Wiggins books.

[TheShmee]

It was necessary to spare her; she was powerful enough to possess an asari commando, and was able to communicate a sense of compassion and humble pity through this vessel. Those are both thought processes of a high level, one void of revenge. The asari's influence probably ciphered the music->color synesthesia the rachni experienced. Shepard's time teaching at Jump Zero allowed him to hear the color of the rachni, and as he bonded with it deemed it ally.

[taranis01]

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

in me2 you recuirt individuals. In ME3 you probably recruit armies to fight off the reapers just like DAO (getting elves, dwarves, humans). ME3 you just get quarians, geth, turians, human alliance, and/or rachni. Not having enough armies may lead to a more devasted galaxy in the end. Killing rachni queen may result in one less army on your side in ME3.

Or maybe I just daydream about this game too much. haha

^^this^^ = win

[Dragonfable of Dain]

I belive the Rachni were tainted by the Reapers similar to how Liara's mother was controled but they only had to control the queens and not their warriors so they didn't have to worry about weakening their abilities so they just put them underground so the other races couldn't fight them except the krogan.

[Legbiter]

Acid bath for Queenie. Every time, paragon or renegade. Their species had their chance.

[expanding panic]

I let her live genocide seems like a bad choice to me. And just because this Rachni Queen isn't all I'm going to kill the whole universe doesn't mean the future generations are going to feel the same way. But I figured if the were defeated once then they can be beat again. That goes for the Krogans, and Geth too.

[Kalzu91]

Koyasha wrote...

With the knowledge Shepard has at the moment the decision has to be made, I have never found it anything but grossly irresponsible to let her go, and therefore I have always killed her.

Shepard is making a decision that will risk trillions of lives (of existing, living people, not hypothetical future people). All the knowledge she has at that point indicate that the rachni are an extremely hostile race of beings that posed a serious danger to the Council races, and that they have the ability to reproduce tremendously fast (especially true if you've talked to Yaroslev Tartakovsky before seeing the queen, he explains just how fast a single queen can get a full colony up and running).

Beyond that, there's no way to know whether she's telling the truth or not. Even if we were certain she was being honest (which we're not, we have every reason to believe that she will say whatever she calculates to have the highest chance of getting Shepard to let her go), she has no way to guarantee the actions of her potential descendants in perpetuity. Similarly, the 'they were indoctrinated' thing is impossible to verify, and considering that she had been dealing with Benezia, who, right there in front of her, just explained indoctrination to some degree, could just as logically be a convenient excuse she came up with on the spot, and made up a story to make it sound like her ancestors are indoctrinated. Again, at the time and with the available information, Shepard doesn't know.

In the end, you are trusting the safety of the galaxy on a brief conversation with an individual who has every reason to decieve you and no reason to be honest if her intentions are actually hostile. There is often a damn good chance in many situations that if you trust someone, it will come back and bite you in the ass. When trusting someone and having them betray you affects only you, that's one thing. However, when it could lead to a war that may cause the deaths of trillions of people you are sworn to protect, there is no excuse for taking even a tiny risk, much less the size of risk that releasing the rachni queen on her own recognizance poses.

It's kind of funny how you talk of the lack of certainty as a reason TO kill the queen when it is quite the opposite.

You can't really logically justify killing her.  How can you justifiably kill another sapient because members of its species took part in a war previously? By that logic, all Germans should be killed because of what happened in WW2 due to the ****s. How anyone can think it is justifiable to kill an individual because of its predecessors' deeds is just insane. You wouldn't kill a baby because its parents were murderers either... or would you?

Another thing, you cannot really be certain that the Rachni are inherently hostile, more so than any other species. Remember, you are only getting one side's account of the war. For an in universe example, if you had asked either Turians or humans if the other was dangerous during the First Contact War or maybe even afterwards, they would probably have answered yes. Naturally your enemy is going to seem like inherently evil or hostile if you are fighting them. You cannot know what the circumstances are that lead to the Rachni wars, they could have easily been a mistake like the war between the humans and Turians (even excluding meta-knowledge about possibly Reaper influence). Negotiations could have failed for numerous reasons beyond mere hostility on the Rachnis' part. The point is, your information source on the hostility of the Rachni is biased and cannot be used as a reliable or certain source of information.

For example, the case with wiping out the Reapers is a totally different matter. The Reapers are actually a certain threat, beings actively trying to kill everything living, while the Rachni queen is not only defenseless but innocent, because it hasn't committed any crimes nor does it plan to. Killing the queen is not logical, but racist fear, especially as you cannot be 100% sure that she will kill. You cannot condemn individuals for what they might do, otherwise all beings possesing free will should be locked up because they could potentially kill some day by choice.

And even if the gueen was lying,you cannot hold Shepard responsible for starting a war, as he had no intent
for it nor did he give any order to start a war, nor could he have known with any real certainty that a war would follow. Only murderers have blood on their hands, as they and they alone have made the decision to kill, they are the ones who pull the trigger. You talk of taking reponsibility, yet you seem to be wanting to act in a very reckless and irresponsible manner if you ask me, without even knowing all the facts. If I had been able to really decide what to do with the Rachni Queen, I would have done what Kaiden suggested at the end of the mission, to let the Council decide as we simply don't know enough about the war or the Rachni.


Other than
that, I actually hoped that saving the Rachni gueen would come to bite you in the ass. Because then your choices and views would have been put under a real test, to see if you remain loyal to your principles instead of fliflopping the moment something went wrong like a lot of politicians nowadays seem to do. But even if it did end horribly, it
would not have made saving it illogical for the reasons explained. If you could
say with absolute certainty that the gueen living would result in another war,
then it would have been a logical decision to kill it in order to save more lives, but as this is
impossible to know, releasing the the gueen is the most logical choice, whether you are
utilitarian or not, especially if you are a utilitarian in fact, as utilitarian
calculus must be done with a reasonable amount of certainty, and not based on prejudiced fears.

Modifié par Kalzu91, 01 mars 2010 - 09:31 .

[DPSSOC]

Kalzu91 wrote...

It's kind of funny how you talk of the lack of certainty as a reason TO kill the queen when it is quite the opposite.

You can't really logically justify killing her.  How can you justifiably kill another sapient because members of its species took part in a war previously? By that logic, all Germans should be killed because of what happened in WW2 due to the ****s. How anyone can think it is justifiable to kill an individual because of its predecessors' deeds is just insane.

 
Except we knew that there had been descent in Germany, that not all of them agreed with what was going on.  We have no such knowledge about the Rachni.  Caution demands that without evidence of descent we must assume there was none.

Similarly while we may not have 100% certainty that the Rachni are dangerous we don't have 100% certainty they're not and caution demands that we assume the worst.  We aren't dealing with something that just effects you or your crew or even just your race; you are gambling with the safety and security of trillions of people.

Kalzu91 wrote...
You wouldn't kill a baby because its parents were murderers either... or would you?

If that child had the genetic memory of it's parents?  In a heartbeat.

Kalzu91 wrote...

Another thing, you cannot really be certain that the Rachni are inherently hostile, more so than any other species. Remember, you are only getting one side's account of the war.

Whether or not they're inherently hostile is irrelevant.  If they are hostile or become hostile we'd have the Rachni Wars all over again with no Krogan to bail us out.  The magnitude of the threat they pose if they're hostile is significant enough that allowing them to live is criminally irresponsible.  It's like a crazy man with a tank; he may never hurt anyone, but the damage he could do if he ever got the desire means action must be taken.

[grregg]

Hmm... by that line of reasoning, humanity should exterminate all other sentient races as soon as opportunity arises. After all, they are all powerful, armed and dangerous. They have proven themselves ready to go to war, kill and exterminate their enemies.



We don't have 100% certainty that they're not about to attack us, right?



And on a side note, what does genetic memory has to do with responsibility? After all the baby could not possibly commit the murders, why do you hold it responsible? Or do you intend to kill it regardless of its being guilty of murder?

[Mnemnosyne]

DPSSOC wrote...
Whether or not they're inherently hostile is irrelevant.  If they are hostile or become hostile we'd have the Rachni Wars all over again with no Krogan to bail us out.  The magnitude of the threat they pose if they're hostile is significant enough that allowing them to live is criminally irresponsible.  It's like a crazy man with a tank; he may never hurt anyone, but the damage he could do if he ever got the desire means action must be taken.

Yep, this is the point right here.  It's too big a risk.  You can cleanly and easily prevent any potential risk by killing the queen here and now.  It is your job as a Spectre to preserve galactic stability, at any cost.  That's important to remember.  That doesn't mean doing whatever you think is 'morally right' it means doing whatever you can to minimize potential threats, and doing it in consideration of the scope of the threat.  The rachni are a massive potential threat.  Simply enormous.  There's every reason to believe that, if they chose to go to war against us again, they could wipe us out, or at best, drive us into a long, bloody, centuries-long war resulting in billions or trillions of casualties.  Given the scale of the threat, if there's even a 0.1% chance that letting her live will cause that to come about, it is irresponsible for an individual in the position of Spectre to do so.

grregg wrote...

Hmm... by that line of reasoning, humanity should exterminate all other sentient races as soon as opportunity arises. After all, they are all powerful, armed and dangerous. They have proven themselves ready to go to war, kill and exterminate their enemies.

We don't have 100% certainty that they're not about to attack us, right?

And on a side note, what does genetic memory has to do with responsibility? After all the baby could not possibly commit the murders, why do you hold it responsible? Or do you intend to kill it regardless of its being guilty of murder?

As to this point, the key difference is that the threat in the case of the rachni can be removed effortlessly, and at the very, very cheap price of one life.  Now, if you had a similarly effortless way to exterminate say, the Turians?  All of them at once, with no chance for them to retaliate?  That's a vastly different situation, since the cost in lives is still very high, and the potential threat is...average, at best.

As far as how genetic memory comes into it, think about it.  If an infant had the memories and experiences of psychopaths, murderers, etc, downloaded into it's mind before it was even born, does it not follow that, while not responsible for their actions, there's an extremely high probability that it will grow up to be like them?  If this infant is just a person, then it should be observed, but there's no particular reason to kill it.  But if this infant has qualities that would enable it to kill huge numbers of people before it is stopped, if it can even be stopped, then the danger it poses means that yes, it should be killed regardless of whether it is currently guilty of anything at all.

None of this is about responsibility, punishment, or justice.  It is about mitigating threat.

Modifié par Koyasha, 02 mars 2010 - 10:03 .

[JustValiant]

I don't believe in collective guilt but I do believe in second chances, so for me there was absolutely no reason to kill her. I did it once out of curiousity but instantly regret it in the same second. If you believe the Rachni are too dangerous to exist, the human race as agressive and unreasonable as we know ourselves might deserve no other fate.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

xI extremist Ix wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

xI extremist Ix wrote...

The queen knows that what the Rachni did in the past was wrong.

Knowing something is wrong has never stopped anyone in the history of mankind from doing it, and it's made clear in the game just how human the other races are.

As for ME2 if she's lying in ME she's still lying in ME2 and only ME3 can confirm whether she was telling the truth or not.  Reiteration does not equate to truth, no matter how many times I say there's a purple monkey sitting on my shoulder it won't change the fact that he's blue.

Mankind has never been hunted to extinction, so how can one say that if a handfull of survivors wouldn't have learned from a mistake they may have made? People see colors differently, Blue and Purple are very close to millions of people, so that simple color change equates to not a big difference and really just a matter of opinion. 

Mankind usually don't learn from past mistakes. It seems too often in history people have made the same mistakes as others have many times before them.

[grregg]

Koyasha wrote...

(...)

As to this point, the key difference is that the threat in the case of the rachni can be removed effortlessly, and at the very, very cheap price of one life.  Now, if you had a similarly effortless way to exterminate say, the Turians?  All of them at once, with no chance for them to retaliate?  That's a vastly different situation, since the cost in lives is still very high, and the potential threat is...average, at best.

As far as how genetic memory comes into it, think about it.  If an infant had the memories and experiences of psychopaths, murderers, etc, downloaded into it's mind before it was even born, does it not follow that, while not responsible for their actions, there's an extremely high probability that it will grow up to be like them?  If this infant is just a person, then it should be observed, but there's no particular reason to kill it.  But if this infant has qualities that would enable it to kill huge numbers of people before it is stopped, if it can even be stopped, then the danger it poses means that yes, it should be killed regardless of whether it is currently guilty of anything at all.

None of this is about responsibility, punishment, or justice.  It is about mitigating threat.

Why do you think that threat posed by the turians is lesser than the one posed by the rachni? The most powerful military in the Citadel space is less dangerous than one (1) rachni individual? Really? I would disagree. Surely the battle-tested armies of turians, asari and salarians are a threat, and moreover an immediate threat, as opposed to one rachni that might very well die of heart attack (or whatever it is that rachni die of) before achieving anything of note. Not to mention the small fact that they managed to eradicate rachni, so the Council races proved themselves willing and capable of genocide.

Taking all that into account, and your words about threat mitigation, you are saying that humanity should eradicate all sentient life in the galaxy, right? You are saying that it might be impractical at the moment, since turians and asari are likely stronger, but if, and as soon as, an opportunity arises, humans should wipe out the other species.

Because even if they are friendly and all smiles right now, who knows what they'll do tomorrow?

As for the genetic memory, I don't agree about the probability. I can just as well make an argument that having the memories implanted will cause the baby to grow up totally unlike the parents. Seeing the horrors of murder (and presumably punishment) might provide just the right deterrent.

[Asheer_Khan]

Apparently many of you already forget that it was Queen who ask for EXTERMINATING all her childrens breed by Biary Hellix because they were deaf of Rachni songs and filled whit fear that's why they become so aggressive.

Beside when you ask her about the war she told that she remembered faint very dark song clouded Rachni senses (sounds familiar?).

No, i let her go especially after her plea to kill all those Rachni in hot labs and when i meet her emissary on Illum i was actually surprised and when she told me that she was saved on desert planet by Queen i realized that my choice was correct.
And  news about spotting Rachni shape scout ships made me little smile as well because this proves that Rachni used thier time well.

Modifié par Asheer_Khan, 02 mars 2010 - 07:00 .

[Mnemnosyne]

grregg wrote...

Why do you think that threat posed by the turians is lesser than the one posed by the rachni? The most powerful military in the Citadel space is less dangerous than one (1) rachni individual? Really? I would disagree. Surely the battle-tested armies of turians, asari and salarians are a threat, and moreover an immediate threat, as opposed to one rachni that might very well die of heart attack (or whatever it is that rachni die of) before achieving anything of note. Not to mention the small fact that they managed to eradicate rachni, so the Council races proved themselves willing and capable of genocide.

Taking all that into account, and your words about threat mitigation, you are saying that humanity should eradicate all sentient life in the galaxy, right? You are saying that it might be impractical at the moment, since turians and asari are likely stronger, but if, and as soon as, an opportunity arises, humans should wipe out the other species.

Because even if they are friendly and all smiles right now, who knows what they'll do tomorrow?

As for the genetic memory, I don't agree about the probability. I can just as well make an argument that having the memories implanted will cause the baby to grow up totally unlike the parents. Seeing the horrors of murder (and presumably punishment) might provide just the right deterrent.

Well, first we have to consider whether 'humanity' is a single whole or not.  Humans have and do fight wars against each other, therefore considering us as a single whole (and therefore not a threat to each other) doesn't work - we're as much a threat to each other as the turians are to us (and to each other - they fought a civil war once too).  Therefore it depends on what you consider 'your side'.  If you view all the races of Citadel space as a society of which parts could always potentially go to war with each other, then there's no clear 'side' to exterminate in order to mitigate threat, because all 'sides,' even parts of your own 'side', are potential threats.  If you wanted to ensure absolutely zero threat ever, the only option would be to exterminate everyone except yourself.  That's why the scale of the threat is important to take into account.

The turians don't have the ability to produce numbers as quickly and efficiently as the rachni.  While a potentially large threat, they can be fought and defeated militarily without requiring a 'gimmick' like the krogan.  Furthermore, the fact that we already have friendly diplomatic relations with them places them on a much lower threat scale.

Krogan, for that matter, are a large threat, and if they ever cured or otherwise counteracted the genophage, I would be in favor of declaring exterminatus on them.  And based on past attempts/successes in curing the genophage, I would even say that exterminating them now would probably be prudent - or at least, altering the genophage to reduce their birth rate to zero, so they die out entirely in a few centuries.

Threat mitigation in this case needs to take into account the scale of the threat.  Turians aren't as large a threat as rachni or krogan because they don't produce numbers as fast, which means the war would be costly to both sides.  However, when considering the disparity between rate of replacement soldiers on each side with the krogan or rachni, it's obvious the cost is far less to the fast breeding races, making war more beneficial for them.  Remember the quote from the bug in MiB: "War? Good. That means more food for my family. All 78 million of them. That's a lot of mouths to feed, Highness."  Anything with that rate of procreation needs to expand constantly and at a pace that essentially requires them to go to war if they encounter anyone else in their expansion path.  War is actively beneficial for a species with such a population growth rate, because the war lowers their growth rate by providing a higher death rate, at the same time as providing improved resources in the forms of keeping what you conquer.

If you think about it in terms of nature, it's the same.  Consider what happens when a foreign species with a very high rate of reproduction is introduced into an environment where the native species have not adapted properly to hunt them.  They usually out-compete the other species within a decade or two, giving no chance for the native species to evolve and compete with them, causing anything from vastly decreased population of the native species all the way to extinction.

If you consider the revelation in ME2 that they already have ships, the fact that in two years that one rachni individual has produced enough rachni to construct starships makes it obvious just how dangerous they truly are.  All it requires is one survivor to start the war over again.

[DPSSOC]

grregg wrote...

And on a side note, what does genetic memory has to do with responsibility? After all the baby could not possibly commit the murders, why do you hold it responsible? Or do you intend to kill it regardless of its being guilty of murder?

Who we are is the sum of our experiences, nothing can change that; your personality, ethics, inclinations, etc. are all predictable results of your life experiences.  A child born with the life experiences of murderers will become a murderer.

grregg wrote...

Why do you think that threat posed by the turians is lesser than the one posed by the rachni?

 
Because the Turians don't breed fast enough to have a colony in weeks, nor is their natural habitat deep underground on planets we can't survive on.

grregg wrote...
Taking all that into account, and your words about threat mitigation, you are saying that humanity should eradicate all sentient life in the galaxy, right? You are saying that it might be impractical at the moment, since turians and asari are likely stronger, but if, and as soon as, an opportunity arises, humans should wipe out the other species.

Because even if they are friendly and all smiles right now, who knows what they'll do tomorrow?

Yup.  Now we obviously can't but from the strict viewpoint of threat mitigation yes humanity should wipe out all other sapient life.  Taken to the further extreme every individual should wipe out everyone who's not them.  The need to eliminate threats is tempered by our inability to do so, we can't wipe out the Turians, Asari, Salarians, Batarians, Elcor, Hanar, or Krogan so we work with or around them.  If ever the opportunity came to wipe them out it should be leapt upon without hesitation, unless the target is in such a position that they can be used while simultaneously limiting their threat potential.

[grregg]

@DPSSOC

I don't accept that the child will become a murderer. How does it follow? Consider that a murderer with all life experiences of a murderer does not have to kill again. Why would the child be compelled to do so?

I think the last paragraph of your post essentially concludes our discussion. I do not consider genocide acceptable, you consider it desirable, it means that we have a profound axiomatic difference. Usually in such cases the subsequent discussion boils down you "I did not! You did too!" exchanges.

@Koyasha and DPSSOC

I think you exaggerate the importance of fast breeding, especially considering that rachni start from 1. I mean look at ME history. Council races were challenged by two fast breeding races, rachni and krogan. One is extinct, the other is sad remnant of its former power. In other words, Citadel Council 2 - fast breeders 0. And that was rachni at the peak of their power, controlling multiple star systems.

Here, we are talking about rachni starting from a single individual. No matter how fast the queen can breed, it cannot challenge the Council without an industrial empire at its back. How is it going to build one without anyone noticing? Sure it can populate a planet or perhaps several and built some ships, but its military capability will be limited by the resources of a single world (maybe several worlds). If it attempts to expand, the Council will notice as they noticed the rachni scout ships.

Also, I do not accept the inevitability of fast breeding. Sure, rachni CAN breed fast, but do they absolutely have to? Why do you think so? Humans can breed much faster than they actually do...

Modifié par grregg, 03 mars 2010 - 12:45 .