653 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Wrex isn't unreliable. He might be bitter, but he's both remarkably frank (as a character trait) and he's the game's provided information source as to the Krogan. We can trust Wrex's account on much the same basis we can trust Tali about the Flotilla (even though she's pretty much our only source), Garrus for how C-SEC operates, Kaiden for BAaT, Samara for the Justicars, Thane for the Drell spiritual beliefs, and so on. The party members in Mass Effect have been honest exposition sources: about the only person who ever deceives you (by ommission) is Mordin, who admits it just a conversation later and corrects it.

Isn't this metagaming? You're using the same rationale for believing Wrex as everyone else does for believing Legion.

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Moiaussi, how was the point of Overlord to wipe out the entire galaxy?

Knowledge of the Geth/Heretic split does not exist before Shepard's finding and reactivation of Legion. Overlord began and entered its crisis well before then.

The 'point' of overlord wasn't to wipe out the galaxy, but the potential results exist regardless of the intentions.

You are avoiding the point I was making though. If the end truely justifies the means, then surely as long as the Geth lost, the means to achieve that wouldn't matter either. In turn it follows that If the means involved wiping everything else out too, then that would still be justified, simply because that achieves the end.

That is what 'the end justifies the means', er, means.

No, Moiaussi. Reducto ad absurdum is not what it means, nor does bluring what the actual ends sought are do you any favors.

SInce it's apparent you have no interest in not making the most extreme exagerations, I see no real point in continuing this 6-day dead conversation, nor do I have any interest in continuing it with you.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 02 décembre 2010 - 02:23 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Xilizhra wrote...

Wrex isn't unreliable. He might be bitter, but he's both remarkably frank (as a character trait) and he's the game's provided information source as to the Krogan. We can trust Wrex's account on much the same basis we can trust Tali about the Flotilla (even though she's pretty much our only source), Garrus for how C-SEC operates, Kaiden for BAaT, Samara for the Justicars, Thane for the Drell spiritual beliefs, and so on. The party members in Mass Effect have been honest exposition sources: about the only person who ever deceives you (by ommission) is Mordin, who admits it just a conversation later and corrects it.

Isn't this metagaming?

No. Or rather, not solely. Recognizing that he's a game's primary information source would be breaking imersion: recognizing the Wrex is frank and brutally honest and isn't in a habit of making up (and nearly killing Shepard) over a non-existent problem, isn't.

You're using the same rationale for believing Wrex as everyone else does for believing Legion.

Wrex's position is supported by the surrounding lore and references in the game, and never contradicted, even Mordin: infact, all Mordin informs us is that the original genophage wouldn't be leading to extinction if the Krogan reformed, which corroborates with what Wrex was talking about back in ME1. Legion's dialogue is not supported by anything else.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 02 décembre 2010 - 02:17 .

[lovgreno]

Arijharn wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

No one in the galaxy have clean hands. The problem with Cerberus is that they always use brutal (and usualy self defeating) methods. Pointing finger at non Cerberus and saying that they are just as bad as Cerberus doesn't make Cerberus crimes go away.

When we point the finger; we aren't saying "by these other crimes, Cerberus' are expunged" we are saying: "ascribe those same rules to the rest of the galaxy" which, it must be said, the vast majority of posters that appear on these boards don't. Of course, they may not care because it's a game but I think the social commentary is as apt through a game as any other medium.

A good point.

[Schneidend]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Mordin's birth rate would work if the Krogans reform. If they don't, the same situation we had in ME1 continues.

The STG team, and presumably the science team that created the genophage originally, included sociologists and political analysts. They have calculated all of this a few hundred times over, and obviously determined that krogan would adapt. They wouldn't have bothered using the genophage if it was certain to lead to extinction. It would be faster to just nuke the krogan. The only thing with the genophage that hasn't gone according to plan is that the krogan started adapting to it on a biological level. Everything else was probably completely/ hashed out by salarian scientists before Wrex was even born.

[lovgreno]

Actualy I think we overanalyse this. Nothing wrong with that of course, it's just for fun. But to me it seems that Cerberus is just one of the two Big Bad Enemies in ME2 that are there mostly to make Shepard look more heroic and/or badass. A more vaguely bad/good Cerberus is a interesting idea but I don't think the writers aimed to do it that complicated.

[Moiaussi]

The 'point' of overlord wasn't to wipe out the galaxy, but the potential results exist regardless of the intentions.

You are avoiding the point I was making though. If the end truely justifies the means, then surely as long as the Geth lost, the means to achieve that wouldn't matter either. In turn it follows that If the means involved wiping everything else out too, then that would still be justified, simply because that achieves the end.

That is what 'the end justifies the means', er, means.

No, Moiaussi. Reducto ad absurdum is not what it means, nor does bluring what the actual ends sought are do you any favors.

SInce it's apparent you have no interest in not making the most extreme exagerations, I see no real point in continuing this 6-day dead conversation, nor do I have any interest in continuing it with you.

I was trying to get you to defend Overlord in terms of an actual risk-benefit analysis instead of the usual knee jerk 'if it works it will help us and that is all that matters.' If you are not interested in a meaningful discussion that includes the risks taken as well as the fact that success is far from guaranteed, then so be it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Schneidend wrote...

The STG team, and presumably the science team that created the genophage originally, included sociologists and political analysts. They have calculated all of this a few hundred times over, and obviously determined that krogan would adapt.

Except no such claim is given by them.

They wouldn't have bothered using the genophage if it was certain to lead to extinction. It would be faster to just nuke the krogan.

Except they did just that, and there are other reasons not to simply nuke the Krogan in the war: retaliation in the war, and even the moral/political 'it's not our fault they didn't reform.'

The only thing with the genophage that hasn't gone according to plan is that the krogan started adapting to it on a biological level. Everything else was probably completely/ hashed out by salarian scientists before Wrex was even born.

Alas, 'let's keep them from breeding enough to stop dying out until, one day, maybe somebody comes up and saves them from themselves and from us if we don't like them' is neither a realistic plan or any less of a genocide. That's about as much a deferal of responsibility as sinking a ship filled with people who are notorious for fighting eachother without warning and then leaving it to the survivors to create their own life rafts in a charming team building exercise: even if some of them do get together and survive, it's despite you and you still sunk the ship.

[Dean_the_Young]

lovgreno wrote...

Actualy I think we overanalyse this. Nothing wrong with that of course, it's just for fun. But to me it seems that Cerberus is just one of the two Big Bad Enemies in ME2 that are there mostly to make Shepard look more heroic and/or badass. A more vaguely bad/good Cerberus is a interesting idea but I don't think the writers aimed to do it that complicated.

When does Cerberus ever come close to the crimes of the Council, let alone the Reapers?

[Dean_the_Young]

Moiaussi wrote...

The 'point' of overlord wasn't to wipe out the galaxy, but the potential results exist regardless of the intentions.

You are avoiding the point I was making though. If the end truely justifies the means, then surely as long as the Geth lost, the means to achieve that wouldn't matter either. In turn it follows that If the means involved wiping everything else out too, then that would still be justified, simply because that achieves the end.

That is what 'the end justifies the means', er, means.

No, Moiaussi. Reducto ad absurdum is not what it means, nor does bluring what the actual ends sought are do you any favors.

SInce it's apparent you have no interest in not making the most extreme exagerations, I see no real point in continuing this 6-day dead conversation, nor do I have any interest in continuing it with you.

I was trying to get you to defend Overlord in terms of an actual risk-benefit analysis instead of the usual knee jerk 'if it works it will help us and that is all that matters.' If you are not interested in a meaningful discussion that includes the risks taken as well as the fact that success is far from guaranteed, then so be it.

Alas, Moiaussi, crying 'but if we destroy everyone and everything indiscriminately that's helping to, right? Right? Right?' rather detracts from your credibility at wanting to contribute to any sort of meaningful discussion

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Except no such claim is given by them.

It is in an offhanded way. The genophage sets the birth rate at pre-elevation levels. The Krogan survived just fine with that before being given superior technology and far easier worlds to settle, so it is simply a known fact that they at least once were capable of handling those death rates.

Except they did just that, and there are other reasons not to simply nuke the Krogan in the war: retaliation in the war, and even the moral/political 'it's not our fault they didn't reform.'

And yet the Krogan are recovering. And if they hadn't, it wouldn't have been because they couldn't but instead because they didn't want to. Even if Wrex is dead, another Krogan takes leadership and does exactly the same thing. Using that as part of the arguement  may be metagaming, but we do have the advantage of being outside the story and being able to see multiple outcomes.

Alas, 'let's keep them from breeding enough to stop dying out until, one day, maybe somebody comes up and saves them from themselves and from us if we don't like them' is neither a realistic plan or any less of a genocide. That's about as much a deferal of responsibility as sinking a ship filled with people who are notorious for fighting eachother without warning and then leaving it to the survivors to create their own life rafts in a charming team building exercise: even if some of them do get together and survive, it's despite you and you still sunk the ship.

Except noone has to save them from themselves. They are doing a good job of that themselves. Humanity can breed a lot faster than it does too, but have learned birth control on our own. As for the accusation of 'sinking the ship', you do have to remember that said ship was firing at them at the time. The way you present it, you seem to feel that the Krogan should have simply been allowed to wipe everyone else out. It isn't merely that the Krogan were notorious for fighting each other... there was a war on. The Genophage allowed an end to that war while giving the Krogan a chance at surviving it. The same tech could have been used to wipe them out instead.

It wasn't.

That is the difference between the Council's solutions and Cerberus'. The Council races do actually try to find solutions that allow survival for all. No such solution was available for the Rachni, but such solutions were available for the Krogan (genophage allows survival, and Krogan are allowed to travel and trade freely within Council space), the Quarians (they are migrant, but again, Quarians are not treated as criminals), the Geth (allowed to live behind the veil, Citadel War notwithstanding), and humanity (Turians convinced to back down and eventually the Alliance becomes a Council Race).

Cerberus' solutions seem harsher and more absolute, and seem to involve experimenting on humanity as much or more than on the races they are allegedly protecting humanity from.

[Flamewielder]

"Evil" actions are committed by sentient beings, not organizations. As such, Cerberus is no more "evil" than the Council is. That is not to say that such organizations cannot employ "evil" individuals.

Dean is absolutely right in saying that the Council, from this perspective, is no more "evil" or "good" than Cerberus is. They both employ rather ruthless methods when the stakes are high enough (from their perspectives). Spectres will kill innocents with the Council's tacit approval if it is felt this protects the wider interests of the Council races at large. Killing an innocent person is an "evil" act, even if it's done in order to save 10 more: it's simply "the lesser of two evils".

The writer's choice of a Renegade/Paragon morality system was deliberately different from an "Evil/Good" system. I don't think many beings in ME manage to get through their existence being exclusive Paragons or Renegades...

Now, if krill were sentient, would they consider a whale to be "evil"? If the whale was also sentient, perhaps... otherwise, one cannot ascribe "evil" intent to a carnivorous non-sentient animal. Reapers can be described so because they can obviously communicate with "lesser" sentient creatures yet do not even bother trying to convince them that Reaper conversion is desirable. They impose their will to "lesser" creatures, convert "worthy" species to Reaper-status and wipe out the rest like weeding a garden... Reapers can collectively be considered "evil", at least from our (us "lesser species") perspective.

Can all Cerberus members be considered "evil"? I don't think so. Are there "evil" persons working for Cerberus? Undoubtedly, yes. From a dispassionate viewpoint (Renegade) viewpoint, any kind of morally reprehensible act is justifiable IF it leads to a defeat of the Reapers and saving trillions of sentient beings.(theft and murder being "lesser evils" than galaxy-wide extinction). Paragons will attempt to minimize the number of morally reprehensible acts as much as possible in their efforts (but may likely end up earning SOME renegade points along the way, as there's never an easy solution to EVERY problem...).

[Moiaussi]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Alas, Moiaussi, crying 'but if we destroy everyone and everything indiscriminately that's helping to, right? Right? Right?' rather detracts from your credibility at wanting to contribute to any sort of meaningful discussion

Dean, you completely misunderstood my arguement. I was pointing out that 'the end justifies the means' is a falacy in and of itself, merely a folk saying, not an arguement.

Such sayings don't justify anything. They are empty words. And if they were more than empty words, you would have a better counter arguement than repeating "right?" If you want credibility, present actual arguements, as you have attempted to do regarding the Genophage (even though that is off topic, since even if it was wrong, other factions doing wrong things is not a justification either).

[Moiaussi]

Flamewielder wrote...

"Evil" actions are committed by sentient beings, not organizations. As such, Cerberus is no more "evil" than the Council is. That is not to say that such organizations cannot employ "evil" individuals.
Dean is absolutely right in saying that the Council, from this perspective, is no more "evil" or "good" than Cerberus is. They both employ rather ruthless methods when the stakes are high enough (from their perspectives). Spectres will kill innocents with the Council's tacit approval if it is felt this protects the wider interests of the Council races at large. Killing an innocent person is an "evil" act, even if it's done in order to save 10 more: it's simply "the lesser of two evils".

What are the council's 'evils',  what was at stake, and how 'evil' were they given what was at stake? What would the consequences have been of acting differently, and what other choices were available? It is easy to say 'but they did bad things too,' but those doing that tend not to look really hard at what was actually done. They also assume it was the first choice, that nothing else was tried, and that it is the 'normal' choice, and seem to feel that two wrongs do make a right. They don't. they are still two wrongs.

The writer's choice of a Renegade/Paragon morality system was deliberately different from an "Evil/Good" system. I don't think many beings in ME manage to get through their existence being exclusive Paragons or Renegades...
Now, if krill were sentient, would they consider a whale to be "evil"? If the whale was also sentient, perhaps... otherwise, one cannot ascribe "evil" intent to a carnivorous non-sentient animal. Reapers can be described so because they can obviously communicate with "lesser" sentient creatures yet do not even bother trying to convince them that Reaper conversion is desirable. They impose their will to "lesser" creatures, convert "worthy" species to Reaper-status and wipe out the rest like weeding a garden... Reapers can collectively be considered "evil", at least from our (us "lesser species") perspective.

Whales might be sentient ... jury is still out on that. Krill however, definately are not. Nature in and of itself is not evil. All life eats. Carnivores by definition eat meat. Sentience changes the rules in that sentients an choose what they eat. They do not need to eat other sentients to survive. Anything they might gain in doing so could be obtained via other means.

Can all Cerberus members be considered "evil"? I don't think so. Are there "evil" persons working for Cerberus? Undoubtedly, yes. From a dispassionate viewpoint (Renegade) viewpoint, any kind of morally reprehensible act is justifiable IF it leads to a defeat of the Reapers and saving trillions of sentient beings.(theft and murder being "lesser evils" than galaxy-wide extinction). Paragons will attempt to minimize the number of morally reprehensible acts as much as possible in their efforts (but may likely end up earning SOME renegade points along the way, as there's never an easy solution to EVERY problem...).

Of course there are good people working for Cerberus. "Good" and "evil" are not conventional political factions. Evil people don't say "Lets all go do some evil today!" outside of cheezy 50's comic books. Similarly most good people simply do good things. They don't consciously say 'lets go do good today.' Your arguement is a red herring though, in that just because there will be some otherwise good people working for cerberus, That in no way justifies the organization's operations as a whole. It isn't so much that there are evil people working for Cerberus, but that their goals encourage evil people to join them. Miranda laments that herself when you ask her about Cerberus.

TIM doesn't seem to do anything to discourage that, or to provide any real oversight to his operations... and that is just the faction he admits to running. According to Miranda, there are other wings that aren't under TIM's control at all. Who is really in charge of Cerberus anyway? (Frankly from the SB's notes it sounds like TIM really is in charge of it all and that was just a line to feed Shep).

[Flamewielder]

Cerberus uses morally and legally criminal means to achieve its objectives, just as Spectres (and therefore the Council) do. Obviously, these objectives are somewhat different: Cerberus seeks Human dominance in the galaxy (and not simply prominence). The Council professes to seek a continued peaceful coexistence among Council Space species. Naturally, some jockeying for prominence is happening all the time and no doubt the Council Species (turians, salarians, asari and humans) compete among themselves for economic advantage and colonization opportunities. But overall, the Council favors "peaceful" competition over armed conflict. Only in that respect can the Council claims SOME moral high ground over Cerberus, as dominance implies primacy at the expense (and possibly suffering) of all others.

There is nothing wrong with seeking human prominence, as every other species is seeking the same. As long as such competition can occur without inter-species war breaking out (killing billions), the Council is satisfied. So the human Systems Alliance, while doing its best to keep humanity in the race, toes the line and more or less follows the rule of Council law (working inside the system, if you will). Cerberus, as a group, is utterly ruthless in its pursuit of their agenda... which contradicts the Council's. So Cerberus can be labeled a terrorrist group (and they have resorted to terrorism in the past) with a human supremacist agenda.

[Flamewielder]

By "evil" i'm referring to the OP question: "Is Cerberus 'Evil'?" If what was meant is "Does the Council (and therefore the human Systems Alliance) hold the moral high ground over Cerberus?" or "Are members of Cerberus criminals?" I would have to say yes, to a degree, because the Council's stated objectives is to maintain as peaceful an environment as possible for all their member species while Cerberus seeks human 'dominance' over other members. The Council may bend their own laws (like most goverments) but follow them most of the time. Cerberus (and TIM) simply ignore laws that stand in the way of any advantage to their cause.

To say that the Council is unequivocally "Good" would be naive, of course. To label Cerberus unequivocally "Evil" would be equally naive. But one professes to work for the greater good of all while the other has (Reaper threat aside) an avowed supremacist agenda. Both have used morally questionable methods in the past.

[lovgreno]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

lovgreno wrote...

Actualy I think we overanalyse this. Nothing wrong with that of course, it's just for fun. But to me it seems that Cerberus is just one of the two Big Bad Enemies in ME2 that are there mostly to make Shepard look more heroic and/or badass. A more vaguely bad/good Cerberus is a interesting idea but I don't think the writers aimed to do it that complicated.

When does Cerberus ever come close to the crimes of the Council, let alone the Reapers?

This is how I think the writers thought about the roles these have in the story:
Reapers: A very alien and powerfull threat that gradualy becommes more and more threatening. A ever present threat of indoctrination makes them more creepy. The main Big Bad of the story.
The Council: Wants galactic stability most of all. Somewhat hindered by politics and rivaling different spiecies to make them annoying, but not a enemy, to Shepard.
Cerberus: A shady, untrustworthy and brutal organisation who want's human dominance despite the cost. A classic illusive manipulator in charge. Due to necesity Shepard have to cut a faustian deal with them and thus alienate him/herself to older allies, like the Alliance and Council.

The only reason these roles are written like this is to make Shepard looking more heroic and strong when dealing with them.
But of course I am not one of the writers myself and Shepards story isn't even over yet so this is all just my speculations.

[Arijharn]

Moiaussi wrote...
Dean, you completely misunderstood my arguement. I was pointing out that 'the end justifies the means' is a falacy in and of itself, merely a folk saying, not an arguement.

What?

I don't know about you, but I consider any genocide to be a pretty bad thing, 'evil' in fact. I fail to see how you can have a conclusive answer to whether the 'end justifies the means' is a 'fallacy' though, because frankly, I disagree with the assertion that you are some mighty moral compass for me to govern myself by, as I find that to be preposterous and frankly the epitome of arrogance.

Obviously; you disagree, but I'd be willing to do whatever it takes to stop the Reapers if I thought such actions would have a tangible effect on a conflict. Why? Because anything else is irresponsible in my view. We are talking about not just humanity's extinction (which I would say, that hopefully most people would have something against that eventuality) but everyone else as well. I view it as being selfish, even morally reprehensible to enforce my morality on other species who may not agree or respect my morals, especially when it's their ass on the line too. 

By making moral concessions on their behalf (and obviously mine as well), then providing we win, they can continue existing and even if we don't, I can die knowing that I had left no stone unturned to try and align things into our favour.

So, as for a though experiment, if I seriously thought sacrificing 300 baby's would create a superweapon that would destroy a race that threatens galactic civilisation I would do so (although, not without massive guilt & regret). Why? Because of the scale of what galactic civilisation means versus the deaths of 300 baby's. And you know what else? In said galactic civilisation there are more innocents in it than the 300 baby's you have, and in that galactic civilisation there would be more than the 300 you have as well.

Back to the OP though; while Cerberus does underhanded things, I couldn't call them evil because they seek to better position their species. I would view that as being rather altruistic in fact, because by the nature of Cerberus, any scientific advancement they perform (aka; the resurrection of someone) they wouldn't be able to take credit for. Cerberus may get a hefty cash windfall from such an enterprise, but Cerberus isn't the one that would go to market with that technology, and more to the point, the scientists involved with the resurrection wouldn't be able to go to the lecture circuit either.

[Autoclave]

It all boils down to the question: "do the ends justify the means?".

If you think yes, than Cerberus in your vision is not an evil organization.

If your answer no, than you have the right to consider them evil.



They are brutally efficient when focusing on achieving an end.

[Mecha Tengu]

there is no such thing as good or evil



Good/evil belongs in high fantasy, or kindergarten preschool

[Xilizhra]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

there is no such thing as good or evil

Good/evil belongs in high fantasy, or kindergarten preschool

Thank you, Lord Voldemort.

Arijharn: What, then, if you thought that killing 300 babies might save the universe, but you didn't know for certain?

[Mecha Tengu]

Xilizhra wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

there is no such thing as good or evil

Good/evil belongs in high fantasy, or kindergarten preschool

Thank you, Lord Voldemort.

oh? If I were to kill someone right now for my own reasons would that be evil? what if he were to fight back? evil too?

Modifié par Mecha Tengu, 04 décembre 2010 - 03:19 .

[Jagri]

Then the Bible and other religious material belongs in the fantasy section of a book store and in the hands of kingdergarten students?



They often try to define good and evil.

[Isaidlunch]

I think it all comes down to intent to decide whether someone is misguided or evil. I tend to lean towards misguided when describing Cerberus/TIM, if they're doing what they genuinely believe is needed for the preservation of the human race then I can't consider them evil. They may do very horrific things to achieve this but their intent is good and they only go to such extremes when they deem it necessary (though Akuze raises some questions). Whether their actions are wrong or not is completely different.

[Bryy_Miller]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Mecha Tengu wrote...

there is no such thing as good or evil

Good/evil belongs in high fantasy, or kindergarten preschool

Thank you, Lord Voldemort.

oh? If I were to kill someone right now for my own reasons would that be evil? what if he were to fight back? evil too?

You know what we call taking someone else's opposing viewpoint to an unreasonable extreme, often with a lack of context? A strawman.