173 replies to this topic

[Nightwriter]

Shandepared wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

I saved them cuz I believed in what they stood for: a unison of the species, a galactic community.

Susceptible to propaganda, I see.

Lol. No.

But just like TIM resurrected Shepard because he needed a symbol, even if that symbol acted in ways he disagreed with, so did I save the Council because they are a symbol, though they may act in ways I disagree with.

Regardless of whether the Council works in the interest of the galaxy or themselves, they stand for something to all the races. They're a symbol of something important.

[JulianusApostate]

A symbol of excluding the 'lesser' races, as Avina calls them? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for inter-species unity, but the Turians, Asari and Salarians seem perfectly happy to ignore any other race, and pass laws on them without their consent. The only time they don't ignore them is if they're too powerful to ignore, like the humans are and the turians became.

The Council may try to represent something better than that, but Avina's conversations in ME1 gave me some distaste for the Council in general. Seems like no matter what it was originally intended to do, the Council became more of a power grab than anything.

But it is just a game, I suppose.

*edit* Looks like Shandepard beat me to the punch on the outrageous 'lesser' races thing.

Edited by JulianusApostate, 26 March 2010 - 12:55 AM.

[GuardianAngel470]

Lemonwizard wrote...

I heard that decapitating a nation's government by killing all their leaders has serious consequences like causing extreme political instability for a number of years.


Can anybody confirm this?

Ah yes, "Political Instability," a state of being often believed to be caused by significant changes to the balance of power.  We have dsmissed those claims.

[wizardryforever]

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Do you really see the Council government as tyrannical?  How do you figure that?  If that's tyrannical, what isn't?  Anarchy?

Yes, I do see them as tyrannical. They impose their will upon species and governments that have no actual repsentation in their government. Associate species have embassies and can petition the Council to do things, but they have no say in the Council's actual decisions. Furthermore the Council maintains a large fleet and prohibits non-member species from competing with them by restricting the construction of dreadnouts.

The entire set-up of the Council is organized to keep other species down. Ultimately they demand that prospective species for Council membership maintain powerful militaries and expansive economies. However in preventing those species from constructing extensive militaries they also prevent those species from expanding their economic influence effectively. The Council forces the "lesser races" to rely upon it.

Finally, we have the issue of the Special Tactics and Reconnaissence Service. SPECTRE agents are above the law; they have the right to kill, steal, and lie as necessary. The SPECTRES answer to no law, only the personal wishes of the Councilors themselves. To put this into perspective, imagine the President of the United States having his own branch of secret agents who had the power to anything they wanted so long as they served his interests and the only person they were held accountable to was the President himself. Not the police, not the Congress, or the Senate, nor the American People would be able to reprimend or revoke the rights of these agents.

The SPECTRES are the true nature of the Council. They're little more than legal murderers with an extremely vague mandate to "protect galactic stability". Saren's murderous ways were well known in Citadel space and presumably to the Council itself. Did that ever give them pause? No, because he got them results and that is all they care about.

Member species do have representation, as exactly that, members.  They aren't running things, just like you and I have a vote, but we don't ultimately make the decisions.  Call that semantics if you must.

The restriction of warship building is meant to maintain peace.  If everyone could build up their military however they wanted, war would be much more frequent.  Does that make it right?  No, but it doesn't make it tyrannical either.  A member species must prove itself ready for a council seat and the resposibilities it entails (heavy is the head that wears the crown).  The catch is that in order to prove itself, a species needs a strong military, so it must somehow have a strong military in spite of the restriction on warships.

The relationship of the Council races to the rest of "council space" is that the council races must guide and protect everyone.  It's somewhat analogous to the concept of First, Second, and Third world countries (not politically correct, oh well).  Not perfect, but again, not tyrannical in and of itself.

Now Spectres, I can agree with mostly.  They seem too much like the Secret Police.  But really, I would think that if the relationship truly was tyrannical, there would be much more unrest.  As it is, unrest only occurs when the Council is deposed, indicating that the Council must be doing something right, even if it is "propagandizing."

[Nightwriter]

JulianusApostate wrote...

A symbol of excluding the 'lesser' races, as Avina calls them? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for inter-species unity, but the Turians, Asari and Salarians seem perfectly happy to ignore any other race, and pass laws on them without their consent. The only time they don't ignore them is if they're too powerful to ignore, like the humans are and the turians became.

The Council may try to represent something better than that, but Avina's conversations in ME1 gave me some distaste for the Council in general. Seems like no matter what it was originally intended to do, the Council became more of a power grab than anything.

But it is just a game, I suppose.

*edit* Looks like Shandepard beat me to the punch on the outrageous 'lesser' races thing.

Sounds like your opinion of the Council was really colored by Avina! A lot, in fact. Is that the only thing you focused on? I mean, she was only a VI. No knowing who programmed her.

Actually, of the three, I think the asari, at least, truly believe in interspecies cooperation, and I think their actions are motivated by this. The salarians generally seem that way, too. The turians, of course, are hopelessly militant, and that can really affect your outlook on the galaxy. What's important is that all three of these people have to agree on something in order for the Council to make a decision; I think things might have gone differently in ME if the turian councilor hadn't been present.

It's the concept of a Council that I support. Even if this particular Council's regime has turned into a "power grab". There must always be a Council, a Federation. It's kind of like believing in the concept of an elected president, and in America, even during the Bush administration.

[wizardryforever]

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Member species do have representation, as exactly that, members.

I don't think you understand what a representative government is.

If you think of each species (and its government) as one person, it is no different than any other representative government.  An individual American citizen can't make decisions like the President does, as they are in no position to do so.  They can however, petition the government to address their grievances.  Sound familiar?

[JulianusApostate]

Nightwriter wrote...

JulianusApostate wrote...

A symbol of excluding the 'lesser' races, as Avina calls them? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for inter-species unity, but the Turians, Asari and Salarians seem perfectly happy to ignore any other race, and pass laws on them without their consent. The only time they don't ignore them is if they're too powerful to ignore, like the humans are and the turians became.

The Council may try to represent something better than that, but Avina's conversations in ME1 gave me some distaste for the Council in general. Seems like no matter what it was originally intended to do, the Council became more of a power grab than anything.

But it is just a game, I suppose.

*edit* Looks like Shandepard beat me to the punch on the outrageous 'lesser' races thing.

Sounds like your opinion of the Council was really colored by Avina! A lot, in fact. Is that the only thing you focused on? I mean, she was only a VI. No knowing who programmed her.

Actually, of the three, I think the asari, at least, truly believe in interspecies cooperation, and I think their actions are motivated by this. The salarians generally seem that way, too. The turians, of course, are hopelessly militant, and that can really affect your outlook on the galaxy. What's important is that all three of these people have to agree on something in order for the Council to make a decision; I think things might have gone differently in ME if the turian councilor hadn't been present.

It's the concept of a Council that I support. Even if this particular Council's regime has turned into a "power grab". There must always be a Council, a Federation. It's kind of like believing in the concept of an elected president, and in America, even during the Bush administration.

Yeah, her programming put me off a lot. I mean, really, lesser races? Did no one proofread that? 

I totally agree, there has to be some sort of united government to protect the peace between the races. I believe it what the Council stands for, just not their practices. I'd like to see a more parliament based interspecies governing body, instead of the 3 Councilors for the 'greater' races. Sure the less powerful races would have fewer representatives in a legislative body, but they would still get SOME representation, as opposed to having only a diplomat with no real power whatsoever.

It does seem like the asari truly want universal cooperation, and the fact that their planet has managed to maintain city-states shows that they're less conquest driven than turians, or humans. But I think the living longer than everyone else makes them (their politicians, anyway) feel a little too superior, and they get used to having more privilege and power than the short lived races below them. 

But then I take a deep breath, remind myself that the Council vs. Congress issue is more a matter game limitations than an actual stance on representation (since there is no way the Council can govern all Citadel Space effectively) and I'm reasonable again.

[JulianusApostate]

wizardryforever wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Member species do have representation, as exactly that, members.

I don't think you understand what a representative government is.

If you think of each species (and its government) as one person, it is no different than any other representative government.  An individual American citizen can't make decisions like the President does, as they are in no position to do so.  They can however, petition the government to address their grievances.  Sound familiar?

Yes, but the point is the 'member' species didn't elect the council, and it's the council that decides who gets to be in the council. Not really representation as such, except for whoever the Council wants to be represented. Also each species is NOT one person (i.e their diplomat) they have many interests, and many people. Their own government, which caters to those specific interests, is powerless to stop the Council passing any law they see fit, or else lose "membership", which in this case equals one embassy (or a shared embassy) and "protection". 

Edited by JulianusApostate, 26 March 2010 - 02:15 AM.

[JulianusApostate]

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...


If you think of each species (and its government) as one person, it is no different than any other representative government.

There is an American Embassy in Moscow. Does this mean that I, as an American, have representation in the Russian government?

By that logic, yes. You are an integral member of the Russian Federation. But of a 'lesser' nationality. 

*edit* sorry for spamming comments, but I'm thoroughly enjoying myself. And I don't mean to offend anyone either, just enjoying a lively debate. 

Edited by JulianusApostate, 26 March 2010 - 02:21 AM.

[wizardryforever]

JulianusApostate wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Member species do have representation, as exactly that, members.

I don't think you understand what a representative government is.

If you think of each species (and its government) as one person, it is no different than any other representative government.  An individual American citizen can't make decisions like the President does, as they are in no position to do so.  They can however, petition the government to address their grievances.  Sound familiar?

Yes, but the point is the 'member' species didn't elect the council, and it's the council that decides who gets to be in the council. Not really representation as such, except for whoever the Council wants to be represented. Also each species is NOT one person (i.e their diplomat) they have many interests, and many people. Their own government, which caters to those specific interests, is powerless to stop the Council passing any law they see fit, or else lose "membership", which in this case equals one embassy (or a shared embassy) and "protection". 

I think the point is that council =/= congress/parliament.  The council more fits the role of the president/prime minister.  The councilors are elected representatives of their own races, but they aren't elected by the other races.

On second thought, the council is more like the UN security council.  Security council members have more power and responsibilities, but aren't elected by the other UN members.  Unless that is completely incorrect, I admit my knowledge of UN politics is incomplete.

[JulianusApostate]

wizardryforever wrote...

JulianusApostate wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Member species do have representation, as exactly that, members.

I don't think you understand what a representative government is.

If you think of each species (and its government) as one person, it is no different than any other representative government.  An individual American citizen can't make decisions like the President does, as they are in no position to do so.  They can however, petition the government to address their grievances.  Sound familiar?

Yes, but the point is the 'member' species didn't elect the council, and it's the council that decides who gets to be in the council. Not really representation as such, except for whoever the Council wants to be represented. Also each species is NOT one person (i.e their diplomat) they have many interests, and many people. Their own government, which caters to those specific interests, is powerless to stop the Council passing any law they see fit, or else lose "membership", which in this case equals one embassy (or a shared embassy) and "protection". 

I think the point is that council =/= congress/parliament.  The council more fits the role of the president/prime minister.  The councilors are elected representatives of their own races, but they aren't elected by the other races.

On second thought, the council is more like the UN security council.  Security council members have more power and responsibilities, but aren't elected by the other UN members.  Unless that is completely incorrect, I admit my knowledge of UN politics is incomplete.

That is best argument in favor of the Council I have ever heard. Thank you. In the UN, though, there is the central members which have the veto power, but nothing more. There are additional security council seats which are filled by different member states every year, as drawn by lot. 

The Council seems to have quite a bit more responsibilities than just security, if I recall correctly. I think I heard somewhere that (might have been Anderson talking about it, I'm not sure) they could vote on a trade agreement, with the other member states getting no say in it whatsoever. So even if it concerns them directly, the Council gets the final and only word, which is my only real problem with them. That, and they're personally obnoxious to Shepard.

[wizardryforever]

Shandepared wrote...

The other main difference is that the United Nations does not have any actual power.

Now I could engage you in what actual power is and whether the UN has it, but I don't want to derail this thread more than it already is.

To get back on topic: yes, letting the council die is bad.  It destabilizes the galaxy when it most needs unity.  Regardless what you may think about the council, order is better than chaos when preparing for a Reaper invasion.

[JulianusApostate]

Shandepared wrote...

The other main difference is that the United Nations does not have any actual power.

I lol'd. 
The Peacekeepers are probably the most useless branch of the US military.

[TheSixthghoul]

It can be good or bad depending on if you keep or destroy the base. All the answers are all on the Citadel. Anti human group and riots... so keeping the base makes it a good choice. Likewise, combining renegade and paragon not a good idea.

[wizardryforever]

Shandepared wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

To get back on topic: yes, letting the council die is bad.  It destabilizes the galaxy when it most needs unity.  Regardless what you may think about the council, order is better than chaos when preparing for a Reaper invasion.

I don't see that as bad. The instability is temporary and it has also lead to an expansion of the turian and human militaries.

That buildup will likely lead to war, or at least a skirmish, as the old hatreds resurface.  The destruction of the status quo in such a spectacular way always leads to such petty hatreds, as those who lost the most seek out a scapegoat.  The scapegoat(s) then defend themselves, meaning war, or at least considerable unrest.

[Portalbendarwinden]

The real reason is: Bioware was to laz...ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL busy with making super awesome DLC's like the super awesome new outfits for 3 squadmates that will cost 160M$ points and it's totally wordt the price! And a new squadmate! He's a very interasting character and a lot of dialogue! RELEASING CONTROL to hire voice actors and make models for the Human Council, so they just didn't wanted to see you.

 

Ha ha, that was epic You should be a writer   

[WolfForce99]

I feel that by letting the council die, makes the begining of mass effect 2 feel much better and more logical. It gives the Collectors a reason to target humans. By letting humanity be the ones to destroy Sovereign, a Reaper, the masters of the Collectors. To me it just gives the Collectors more reason to attack the Normandy and to abduct human colonists.

[line_genrou]

Depends on how you play.

My Shepard looks out for humanity (not like Cerberus does though), so he saves the Council because even though he hate politics with a passion and hates the Council, he realizes they are important as a symbolic galactic unity, also because this is the chance humanity has to do something big instead of doing something shitty like letting the Council die and create an unstable situation in the galaxy, even more so with the Reaper threat around the corner.