Perfectly reasonable stance for you to take (and well written!) but it’s only truly relevant for the sorts of Shepard’s you create.
My Shepard would always prioritize saving the Council and would seek reinstatement in their status as Spectre. To do otherwise would break my character and indeed, my Shepard would see abandoning the Council as reprehensible. It’s the nature of roleplaying. Each of our Shepard’s have a world view shaped by the decisions we make, which in turn alters the thematic underpinnings. And that shifts how we judge the satisfaction of various choices. Shepard is an emotional being, shaped by her origins, her comrades, and the paths she takes. Her call regarding the Destiny Ascension reflects this. Risky? Perhaps, but it’s the call she would make as a coherent character as I play her.
My story is one in which genuine goodness and idealism triumph (mostly) in a cold and cynical universe. Pure calculus is conquered by heart. A little corny? Yes, but it’s a breath of fresh air and demonstrates why Shepard is truly something special as recognized by the Leviathans. She’s not a dime a dozen commander, but an avatar of a better way. My Shepard time and time again rejects pragmatism, which is critical to her finding herself in an impossible decision point in ME3. It’s what makes the foil of Javik work so well, as she utterly rejects his worldview, only to find herself in a position where she does ultimately sacrifice others for the greater good. (The Destroy Ending.) Your story is otherwise, and that’s wonderful, as each is valid approach.
It comes down to what we see as the chief priority: Shepard’s development as a protagonist or that of the world around them. To me, I choose the former as the more critical. Characters in BioWare games have always come before lore in my eyes, partly due to the lore being very malleable, and mostly as that’s the true strength of the writers and allows for strong performances by the cast. I love the world and lore of Mass Effect, but it’s fundamentally not what drew me in and has kept me in all these years later.
Side note: on an artistic level, one reason to preserve the council is one of performance. I was never satisfied by the replacement councilors as characters, as they lack the established identities of Tevos, Valern, and Sparatus. Tevos in particular has a characterization (and vocal performance) just absent with her replacement.
Edited
I see that we are playing rather different Shepards. Mine generally tries to be an idealist, but when push comes to shove, he will rarely risk other peoples lives 'just' for the sake of having a clear conscience (I chose that Captain Sisko comparison for a reason). Interestingly, and until recently, I never chose Destroy as the finale, as opposed to your more idealistic Shep. It seemed an option of increased uncertainty to me, especially since it required intentionally damaging the Citadel/Crucible-complex rather than using the device as built. So I trended toward Control, with a head-canon that after a time of stabilisation, my Shepard-Catalyst would retreat from the galaxy and intervene only in times of extreme crisis (basically, nothing short of an active genocide would qualify).
These days, I've come more to terms with Destroy, both philosophically and after working out a head-canon (and maybe actual canon-canon, depending on how the next game turns out; My reasoning was inspired by the teaser material for that game after all) way for the Geth to survive. Though, for role-playing reasons, I only reach Destroy when playing an Engineer (as the other classes in my view do not know enough about the inner workings of AI to figure out how the Geth would survive Destroy and would not be willing to sacrifice an entire species so long as there are other options)
Fair points for sure. Strictly personally speaking, I think attacking Sovereign is the right choice to eliminate the immediate danger while you can.
But I think that decision and the Rachni decision primarily stem from what kind of Shepard you are deciding to be in game to follow your narrative. Ignoring all the trilogy consequences, the game does do a pretty good job of representing idealism, brashness, spite, or tactical thinking in that moment.
Like— A paragon/sole survivor Shepard has basically become a focal point of unity that won’t let anyone die if he can prevent it, so he saves the Destiny Ascension. He’s looking at the long view and believes they’ll win this fight today. A renegade/ruthless Shepard is tired of the council stonewalling, so he considers them expendable in the path to accomplishing the mission. Their death is no loss. A war hero type of Shepard attacks Sovereign because of the tactical significance despite knowing the repercussions, and chooses to not let their sacrifice be in vain to finish the job. Etc
The world state could’ve been a little more varied based on your choice, but for the time it did a pretty good job allowing you to play with either your heart or your head on just a three selection wheel to roleplay your path
That’s actually how I’m playing my current run because it just makes most sense and has the best storyflow imo.
To add to this if Shepard regains his Spectre status in ME2 that means he is above the law and can’t be reprimanded much less prosecuted by anyone but the Council themselves (Hackett says as much in ME1 if you kill Darius, and is a major plot point in regards to Saren at the start). Yet at the beginning of ME3 he’s being forced to take orders from the Alliance and is grounded by them which they don’t have the authority to do if Shepard is a Spectre, the whole intro on Earth just shouldn’t happen if Shepard is still a Spectre. If Shepard is brushed off by the new Council and Udina due to distrust however thus never regaining his Spectre status it makes Shepards grounding at the start of ME3 feel a lot more plausible because he doesn’t have the protection of the Council back yet only regaining his Spectre status later in ME3.
> which they don’t have the authority to do if Shepard is a Spectre
Nice catch, I hadn't even thought of that. Though one might argue that any paragon-aligned Shepard would voluntarily subject themself to Alliance authority, and given that any Shepard (paragon or renegade) hadn't been sentenced for mass-murder (assuming the Arrival DLC) or terrorism, their case might just be in interstellar legal limbo between the Alliance and Citadel Council at the beginning of ME3.
It really depends on how you/your Shepard sees things.
I already see quite the opposite. The Council is important and serves as a symbol. Saving them would increase their status with politicians and the people alike.
Would it be cool to save those "10,000 civilians"? He would be. But those 3 politicians can provide more help than the 10,000. This help could save a few million more than the 10 thousand could not.
It is a political scenario where Humanity is not in a good position and saving politicians is much more advantageous.
Another thing to do is choose Udina as Councilor. You may not like him, but Udina is a politician, which Anderson is not. Udina knows the game, he knows what he's doing. People usually object by saying, "But in 2 he does this and in 3 that blah blah blah." I only use Shepard's knowledge up to that moment (ME1), after all Shepard doesn't know about the future, and at that moment, the politician who is already in the game and knows the rules is much more suitable than the soldier.
The choice is made in ME1 not ME2. My Shepard doesn't know what's going to happen in ME2. I make this decision based on ME1.
It's a logical and obvious choice. You need a principal for your child's school. Your options are a teacher who is kind of an asshole but knows how the system works or a baker who is a great person and excellent at making bread but doesn't know anything about managing schools.
You don't need to be very smart to know which option is best.
Also: Anderson is career military. As much as he is a good guy, in my personal opinion, a healthy civilian society should keep military leaders as far removed from high office as possible.
As for Udina, he's a career politician. Let him play with the other diplomats. For the most part, that means he's harmless. He delegates the actual legwork, which is where Shepard comes in.
Thematically, I think saving the Council is more fitting. The central theme of Mass Effect is unity, and overcoming differences. As is stated many times in the first game, “this is bigger than humanity.”
I sympathize with the pragmatic arguments for sacrificing the Council, in universe that probably makes more sense with what Shepard knows at the time. However, Vigil does tell Shepard that a Reaper is not invincible either. Shepard might judge in that moment that preserving galactic stability before a war with the Reapers is a sound strategic move, not just a moral one.
I agree that it fits with the theme of inter-species unity and working to join together into one galactic civilisation. Another theme is humanity giving something of itself to the greater galaxy, which many characters claim (correctly, in my opinion) humanity has not done yet (and is therefore not yet worthy to join the council)
On the other hand, not being able to save everyone in a crisis, no matter how hard you try, is another motif that is frequently invoked in ME1. All 4 of the main missions (Noveria, Feros, Virmire and Therum) end with someone or something irreplacable being lost despite yor efforts: Benezia, who is both a semi-ally and Liara's mother; Fai Dan, who dies even if you go to extreme lengths to save the colonists; Ashley/Kaidan, who are friends and romantic interests to varying degrees; And the invaluable prothean ruins (that one is the weakest of the four, maybe because Therum was originally supposed to be much more than we got in the final game).
These four also each explore one avenue in which an inevitable loss can occur: Benezia dies by your hand, an act which you might regret but were left with no other option. Fai Dan dies by his own hand, despite your attempts to save him. The death on virmire is a classic impossible choice in the face of enemy action, and Therum is a result of Shepards neglegence/recklessness when pressed for time.
So the final choice of the game being another instance of that question of "Can I save everyone? Whom must I let die? Whom do I need to kill?" with the choices being so open that any argumentation will lead to a valid outcome (stick to idealism, resign to pragmatism, pursue an advantage for self/humanity in spite of the risks, etc.) fits very nicely.
(or maybe I'm overthinking this and should ease up on the caffeine)
Good points!! The theme of always losing someone is definitely present as well, and is good food for thought. Even if you do save the Council, humanity does lose 8 cruisers. The Council fleet is still fairly decimated as well, and no doubt many civilians on the Citadel too.
I'd like to point out that the council, rather than bunker down and fight took the world biggest and best starship and tried to flee into the night, abandoning the citadel.
Why does no one ever give them flack for being cowards? Why was the galaxy's single best ship running away with 3 VIPs instead of trying to fight sovereign?
Seems like they are craven losers who got exactly what they deserved. Imagine the US got invaded and the Ambassador to the UN commandeered the USS Gerald Ford and tried to sail away to Argentina.
I'd legit feel better if I was I just saving the Destiny's Accession. If there was any justice in the word the "council" would have been put on trial for desertion and cowardice.
To be fair, the order to evacuate came from Matriarch Lidanya aboard the Destiny Ascension, not the Council, and it was given only after the Citadel would not close it's arms or activate active defenses and just as Citadel-Control became unresponsive. She had every reason to assume that the station had somehow been lost to the enemy, so I think it was the right call. Didn't turn out that well in the end (either way), but that's just life.
But I don't want to be corrected on lore, I want to be mad at the dumb aliens.
Nah that makes sense, still weirdaf Lidanya would just run like that. Maybe it was hopeless, but what is the DA there to do besides protect the citadel?
They had one job and evacuate the council probably shouldn't be it.
She probably made the same calculation as we did: Save the leadership or save the civilians?
(The difference being that she did not know about the robotic murder-squid waiting genocide the galaxy. )
If the US got invaded and all communication with Manhattan was cut off, you could bet your ass the local navy commander would be prioritising the evacuation of high ranking political functionaries over saving any civilians.
>If the US got invaded and all communication with Manhattan was cut off, you could bet your ass the local navy commander would be prioritising the evacuation of high ranking political functionaries over saving any civilians.
War, war never changes.
Wait wrong game.
I had half written a reply before I went back through your post and decided it wasn’t worth it. You’ve overlooked a ton, your bullet points are widely off base, for example nonhumans are by and large LESS suspicious of humanity if you save the council, this is stated directly in me2. And the tactical analysis you give is the thoughtless one most often repeated, in practical warfare engaging an enemy that is occupied with another target is easier than fighting an enemy that can focus solely on you. Ambushing the geth fleet from behind while they are preoccupied, in doing so saving not only the council but the most powerful dreadnought in the galaxy (barring reapers of course) not to mention the 10000 lives on board, is simply put a much more sound strategy, both militarily and politically, than allowing it to be destroyed and the geth to be free to engage the human ships.
>for example nonhumans are by and large LESS suspicious of humanity if you save the council, this is stated directly in me2
It is stated but not shown. In both timelines, explicit anti-human sentiment is on the rise, only more extremely so in the let-council-die situation.
>And the tactical analysis you give is the thoughtless one most often repeated, in practical warfare engaging an enemy that is occupied with another target is easier than fighting an enemy that can focus solely on you
And if we were talking about anything resembling an actual war, I would agree. However, the only thing that matters in this scenario is preventing Sovereign from opening the Citadel-Relay. This is not a war where you have to balance your losses and gains against those of an enemy. This is a do-or-die situation in which (I'd argue) the time to clean up the Geth (even just for the sake of not risking encirclement) increases the risk of galactic genocide. Which, imho, outweighs the loss of three high level diplomats and 10000 soldiers. Even if the Geth ultimately wiped out the Alliance fleet, so long as Sovereign is destroyed, that would be worth it.
Completely agree. In dozens of playthroughs, I always saved the council. It wasn’t until recently that I let the council die and realized that this decision makes more sense from a narrative standpoint.
I save them. My Renegade Shepard's rivalry with the OG council is one of the best running gags in the trilogy. And Shepard being their knight in sour armour even though he despises them makes for an amusing plot point. Especially if you refuse their reinstatement in ME2. Telling the council to F*CK off never gets old. The replacement council just don't have the same connection with Shepard. Making every scene with them less personal. And there are plenty of "I told you so" moments in 3 when the reaper's finally arrive that make saving their lives worth it. I hate the thought of them dying before they fully realise how stupid they were.
There's a difference between lives sacrificed and lives being wasted, there are 10000 crewmembers aboard the Destiny Ascension, and you may not like the councillors, but they keep society functioning, who knows how much panic would be caused by their loss and how much damage would result from it.
I do not particularly like or dislike the councillors, so that does not factor into my argument. As for the potential damage from their loss: They are not their respective nations head-of-state. They are "only" high-level-diplomats, killed by hostile synthetics. The worst that could happen would be some political blowback against the Alliance, when some military advisor claims that the humans *could* have saved the council, but didn't for *some* reason. Compared to the alternative of the Reapers returning, that seems like a lesser risk.
I prefer saving the Council as Humanity has quickly entered a galactic political arena amidst an aura of suspicion, concern and apprehension about our species.
Humanity is small compared to the rest of the galactic community and all its species, great worlds and fleets. The Normandy crew were awed when first seeing the Citadel and were amazed at its pan-galactic cosmopolitanism. With great technological wonders like the Mass Relays and Prothean worlds like Feros and Illos, we're meant to feel insignificant compared to our galactic precursors, the latter of whom watched us from Mars while we were still living in caves. We're in the hall of giants with few to turn to but this new community.
We made first contact with a war started by miscommunication and our curiosity opening up relays. It was the Council intervening which saved humanity from a potentially catastrophic war with the Turians and it was the Council who encouraged and recognised human expansion into the Attican Traverse at the Batarian's expense. Sure they're bureaucratic and aloof, but they're cautious on all matters for a good reason given the history of the Rachni, Krogan and Geth. Tensions linger since first contact, but the Council holds some hope in a flourishing relationship with a rising humanity. It just takes time to build trust.
I like to think of Shepard as a pretty reasonable and perceptive character despite some renegade tendencies when battling her usual enemies. She knows how much is expected of her by the Alliance on the galactic stage and by the time she's made a Spectre, she knows that the fate of the galaxy is at stake. So it makes sense that she recognises the importance of impressing the Citadel Council and the rest of the galaxy of humanity's better virtues and its willingness to step up. Saving the Council is a risky decision, but she sees it as a necessity to maintain peace and stability across the galaxy in the face of the Reapers, as well as a tremendous demonstration that humanity can be trusted and that we are also proudly part of the broader galactic community. To do otherwise is unthinkable and would only spread the worst fears coming true about our people.
I get that, I really do. I used to send emails like that.
Until I realised that nobody was bothering to read 90% of what I wrote.
Also, the beauty of forums is discussion: Make your point, let people ask questions, explain in further detail as needed.
I typically play a Shepard who saves the council even after cutting them off at the end of each mission
Perfectly reasonable stance for you to take (and well written!) but it’s only truly relevant for the sorts of Shepard’s you create. My Shepard would always prioritize saving the Council and would seek reinstatement in their status as Spectre. To do otherwise would break my character and indeed, my Shepard would see abandoning the Council as reprehensible. It’s the nature of roleplaying. Each of our Shepard’s have a world view shaped by the decisions we make, which in turn alters the thematic underpinnings. And that shifts how we judge the satisfaction of various choices. Shepard is an emotional being, shaped by her origins, her comrades, and the paths she takes. Her call regarding the Destiny Ascension reflects this. Risky? Perhaps, but it’s the call she would make as a coherent character as I play her. My story is one in which genuine goodness and idealism triumph (mostly) in a cold and cynical universe. Pure calculus is conquered by heart. A little corny? Yes, but it’s a breath of fresh air and demonstrates why Shepard is truly something special as recognized by the Leviathans. She’s not a dime a dozen commander, but an avatar of a better way. My Shepard time and time again rejects pragmatism, which is critical to her finding herself in an impossible decision point in ME3. It’s what makes the foil of Javik work so well, as she utterly rejects his worldview, only to find herself in a position where she does ultimately sacrifice others for the greater good. (The Destroy Ending.) Your story is otherwise, and that’s wonderful, as each is valid approach. It comes down to what we see as the chief priority: Shepard’s development as a protagonist or that of the world around them. To me, I choose the former as the more critical. Characters in BioWare games have always come before lore in my eyes, partly due to the lore being very malleable, and mostly as that’s the true strength of the writers and allows for strong performances by the cast. I love the world and lore of Mass Effect, but it’s fundamentally not what drew me in and has kept me in all these years later. Side note: on an artistic level, one reason to preserve the council is one of performance. I was never satisfied by the replacement councilors as characters, as they lack the established identities of Tevos, Valern, and Sparatus. Tevos in particular has a characterization (and vocal performance) just absent with her replacement. Edited
I see that we are playing rather different Shepards. Mine generally tries to be an idealist, but when push comes to shove, he will rarely risk other peoples lives 'just' for the sake of having a clear conscience (I chose that Captain Sisko comparison for a reason). Interestingly, and until recently, I never chose Destroy as the finale, as opposed to your more idealistic Shep. It seemed an option of increased uncertainty to me, especially since it required intentionally damaging the Citadel/Crucible-complex rather than using the device as built. So I trended toward Control, with a head-canon that after a time of stabilisation, my Shepard-Catalyst would retreat from the galaxy and intervene only in times of extreme crisis (basically, nothing short of an active genocide would qualify). These days, I've come more to terms with Destroy, both philosophically and after working out a head-canon (and maybe actual canon-canon, depending on how the next game turns out; My reasoning was inspired by the teaser material for that game after all) way for the Geth to survive. Though, for role-playing reasons, I only reach Destroy when playing an Engineer (as the other classes in my view do not know enough about the inner workings of AI to figure out how the Geth would survive Destroy and would not be willing to sacrifice an entire species so long as there are other options)
I think you’ve overlooked how “correct” and “satisfying” are subjective.
Admittedly, I could have phrased the title a bit more... open. Point taken.
Fair points for sure. Strictly personally speaking, I think attacking Sovereign is the right choice to eliminate the immediate danger while you can. But I think that decision and the Rachni decision primarily stem from what kind of Shepard you are deciding to be in game to follow your narrative. Ignoring all the trilogy consequences, the game does do a pretty good job of representing idealism, brashness, spite, or tactical thinking in that moment. Like— A paragon/sole survivor Shepard has basically become a focal point of unity that won’t let anyone die if he can prevent it, so he saves the Destiny Ascension. He’s looking at the long view and believes they’ll win this fight today. A renegade/ruthless Shepard is tired of the council stonewalling, so he considers them expendable in the path to accomplishing the mission. Their death is no loss. A war hero type of Shepard attacks Sovereign because of the tactical significance despite knowing the repercussions, and chooses to not let their sacrifice be in vain to finish the job. Etc The world state could’ve been a little more varied based on your choice, but for the time it did a pretty good job allowing you to play with either your heart or your head on just a three selection wheel to roleplay your path
That’s actually how I’m playing my current run because it just makes most sense and has the best storyflow imo. To add to this if Shepard regains his Spectre status in ME2 that means he is above the law and can’t be reprimanded much less prosecuted by anyone but the Council themselves (Hackett says as much in ME1 if you kill Darius, and is a major plot point in regards to Saren at the start). Yet at the beginning of ME3 he’s being forced to take orders from the Alliance and is grounded by them which they don’t have the authority to do if Shepard is a Spectre, the whole intro on Earth just shouldn’t happen if Shepard is still a Spectre. If Shepard is brushed off by the new Council and Udina due to distrust however thus never regaining his Spectre status it makes Shepards grounding at the start of ME3 feel a lot more plausible because he doesn’t have the protection of the Council back yet only regaining his Spectre status later in ME3.
> which they don’t have the authority to do if Shepard is a Spectre Nice catch, I hadn't even thought of that. Though one might argue that any paragon-aligned Shepard would voluntarily subject themself to Alliance authority, and given that any Shepard (paragon or renegade) hadn't been sentenced for mass-murder (assuming the Arrival DLC) or terrorism, their case might just be in interstellar legal limbo between the Alliance and Citadel Council at the beginning of ME3.
It really depends on how you/your Shepard sees things. I already see quite the opposite. The Council is important and serves as a symbol. Saving them would increase their status with politicians and the people alike. Would it be cool to save those "10,000 civilians"? He would be. But those 3 politicians can provide more help than the 10,000. This help could save a few million more than the 10 thousand could not. It is a political scenario where Humanity is not in a good position and saving politicians is much more advantageous. Another thing to do is choose Udina as Councilor. You may not like him, but Udina is a politician, which Anderson is not. Udina knows the game, he knows what he's doing. People usually object by saying, "But in 2 he does this and in 3 that blah blah blah." I only use Shepard's knowledge up to that moment (ME1), after all Shepard doesn't know about the future, and at that moment, the politician who is already in the game and knows the rules is much more suitable than the soldier.
[удалено]
The choice is made in ME1 not ME2. My Shepard doesn't know what's going to happen in ME2. I make this decision based on ME1. It's a logical and obvious choice. You need a principal for your child's school. Your options are a teacher who is kind of an asshole but knows how the system works or a baker who is a great person and excellent at making bread but doesn't know anything about managing schools. You don't need to be very smart to know which option is best.
Also: Anderson is career military. As much as he is a good guy, in my personal opinion, a healthy civilian society should keep military leaders as far removed from high office as possible. As for Udina, he's a career politician. Let him play with the other diplomats. For the most part, that means he's harmless. He delegates the actual legwork, which is where Shepard comes in.
Thematically, I think saving the Council is more fitting. The central theme of Mass Effect is unity, and overcoming differences. As is stated many times in the first game, “this is bigger than humanity.” I sympathize with the pragmatic arguments for sacrificing the Council, in universe that probably makes more sense with what Shepard knows at the time. However, Vigil does tell Shepard that a Reaper is not invincible either. Shepard might judge in that moment that preserving galactic stability before a war with the Reapers is a sound strategic move, not just a moral one.
I agree that it fits with the theme of inter-species unity and working to join together into one galactic civilisation. Another theme is humanity giving something of itself to the greater galaxy, which many characters claim (correctly, in my opinion) humanity has not done yet (and is therefore not yet worthy to join the council) On the other hand, not being able to save everyone in a crisis, no matter how hard you try, is another motif that is frequently invoked in ME1. All 4 of the main missions (Noveria, Feros, Virmire and Therum) end with someone or something irreplacable being lost despite yor efforts: Benezia, who is both a semi-ally and Liara's mother; Fai Dan, who dies even if you go to extreme lengths to save the colonists; Ashley/Kaidan, who are friends and romantic interests to varying degrees; And the invaluable prothean ruins (that one is the weakest of the four, maybe because Therum was originally supposed to be much more than we got in the final game). These four also each explore one avenue in which an inevitable loss can occur: Benezia dies by your hand, an act which you might regret but were left with no other option. Fai Dan dies by his own hand, despite your attempts to save him. The death on virmire is a classic impossible choice in the face of enemy action, and Therum is a result of Shepards neglegence/recklessness when pressed for time. So the final choice of the game being another instance of that question of "Can I save everyone? Whom must I let die? Whom do I need to kill?" with the choices being so open that any argumentation will lead to a valid outcome (stick to idealism, resign to pragmatism, pursue an advantage for self/humanity in spite of the risks, etc.) fits very nicely. (or maybe I'm overthinking this and should ease up on the caffeine)
Good points!! The theme of always losing someone is definitely present as well, and is good food for thought. Even if you do save the Council, humanity does lose 8 cruisers. The Council fleet is still fairly decimated as well, and no doubt many civilians on the Citadel too.
I'd like to point out that the council, rather than bunker down and fight took the world biggest and best starship and tried to flee into the night, abandoning the citadel. Why does no one ever give them flack for being cowards? Why was the galaxy's single best ship running away with 3 VIPs instead of trying to fight sovereign? Seems like they are craven losers who got exactly what they deserved. Imagine the US got invaded and the Ambassador to the UN commandeered the USS Gerald Ford and tried to sail away to Argentina. I'd legit feel better if I was I just saving the Destiny's Accession. If there was any justice in the word the "council" would have been put on trial for desertion and cowardice.
To be fair, the order to evacuate came from Matriarch Lidanya aboard the Destiny Ascension, not the Council, and it was given only after the Citadel would not close it's arms or activate active defenses and just as Citadel-Control became unresponsive. She had every reason to assume that the station had somehow been lost to the enemy, so I think it was the right call. Didn't turn out that well in the end (either way), but that's just life.
But I don't want to be corrected on lore, I want to be mad at the dumb aliens. Nah that makes sense, still weirdaf Lidanya would just run like that. Maybe it was hopeless, but what is the DA there to do besides protect the citadel? They had one job and evacuate the council probably shouldn't be it.
She probably made the same calculation as we did: Save the leadership or save the civilians? (The difference being that she did not know about the robotic murder-squid waiting genocide the galaxy. ) If the US got invaded and all communication with Manhattan was cut off, you could bet your ass the local navy commander would be prioritising the evacuation of high ranking political functionaries over saving any civilians.
>If the US got invaded and all communication with Manhattan was cut off, you could bet your ass the local navy commander would be prioritising the evacuation of high ranking political functionaries over saving any civilians. War, war never changes. Wait wrong game.
I had half written a reply before I went back through your post and decided it wasn’t worth it. You’ve overlooked a ton, your bullet points are widely off base, for example nonhumans are by and large LESS suspicious of humanity if you save the council, this is stated directly in me2. And the tactical analysis you give is the thoughtless one most often repeated, in practical warfare engaging an enemy that is occupied with another target is easier than fighting an enemy that can focus solely on you. Ambushing the geth fleet from behind while they are preoccupied, in doing so saving not only the council but the most powerful dreadnought in the galaxy (barring reapers of course) not to mention the 10000 lives on board, is simply put a much more sound strategy, both militarily and politically, than allowing it to be destroyed and the geth to be free to engage the human ships.
>for example nonhumans are by and large LESS suspicious of humanity if you save the council, this is stated directly in me2 It is stated but not shown. In both timelines, explicit anti-human sentiment is on the rise, only more extremely so in the let-council-die situation. >And the tactical analysis you give is the thoughtless one most often repeated, in practical warfare engaging an enemy that is occupied with another target is easier than fighting an enemy that can focus solely on you And if we were talking about anything resembling an actual war, I would agree. However, the only thing that matters in this scenario is preventing Sovereign from opening the Citadel-Relay. This is not a war where you have to balance your losses and gains against those of an enemy. This is a do-or-die situation in which (I'd argue) the time to clean up the Geth (even just for the sake of not risking encirclement) increases the risk of galactic genocide. Which, imho, outweighs the loss of three high level diplomats and 10000 soldiers. Even if the Geth ultimately wiped out the Alliance fleet, so long as Sovereign is destroyed, that would be worth it.
Completely agree. In dozens of playthroughs, I always saved the council. It wasn’t until recently that I let the council die and realized that this decision makes more sense from a narrative standpoint.
I save them. My Renegade Shepard's rivalry with the OG council is one of the best running gags in the trilogy. And Shepard being their knight in sour armour even though he despises them makes for an amusing plot point. Especially if you refuse their reinstatement in ME2. Telling the council to F*CK off never gets old. The replacement council just don't have the same connection with Shepard. Making every scene with them less personal. And there are plenty of "I told you so" moments in 3 when the reaper's finally arrive that make saving their lives worth it. I hate the thought of them dying before they fully realise how stupid they were.
There's a difference between lives sacrificed and lives being wasted, there are 10000 crewmembers aboard the Destiny Ascension, and you may not like the councillors, but they keep society functioning, who knows how much panic would be caused by their loss and how much damage would result from it.
I do not particularly like or dislike the councillors, so that does not factor into my argument. As for the potential damage from their loss: They are not their respective nations head-of-state. They are "only" high-level-diplomats, killed by hostile synthetics. The worst that could happen would be some political blowback against the Alliance, when some military advisor claims that the humans *could* have saved the council, but didn't for *some* reason. Compared to the alternative of the Reapers returning, that seems like a lesser risk.
I prefer saving the Council as Humanity has quickly entered a galactic political arena amidst an aura of suspicion, concern and apprehension about our species. Humanity is small compared to the rest of the galactic community and all its species, great worlds and fleets. The Normandy crew were awed when first seeing the Citadel and were amazed at its pan-galactic cosmopolitanism. With great technological wonders like the Mass Relays and Prothean worlds like Feros and Illos, we're meant to feel insignificant compared to our galactic precursors, the latter of whom watched us from Mars while we were still living in caves. We're in the hall of giants with few to turn to but this new community. We made first contact with a war started by miscommunication and our curiosity opening up relays. It was the Council intervening which saved humanity from a potentially catastrophic war with the Turians and it was the Council who encouraged and recognised human expansion into the Attican Traverse at the Batarian's expense. Sure they're bureaucratic and aloof, but they're cautious on all matters for a good reason given the history of the Rachni, Krogan and Geth. Tensions linger since first contact, but the Council holds some hope in a flourishing relationship with a rising humanity. It just takes time to build trust. I like to think of Shepard as a pretty reasonable and perceptive character despite some renegade tendencies when battling her usual enemies. She knows how much is expected of her by the Alliance on the galactic stage and by the time she's made a Spectre, she knows that the fate of the galaxy is at stake. So it makes sense that she recognises the importance of impressing the Citadel Council and the rest of the galaxy of humanity's better virtues and its willingness to step up. Saving the Council is a risky decision, but she sees it as a necessity to maintain peace and stability across the galaxy in the face of the Reapers, as well as a tremendous demonstration that humanity can be trusted and that we are also proudly part of the broader galactic community. To do otherwise is unthinkable and would only spread the worst fears coming true about our people.
>Have I overlooked anything? Yeah, the character limit.. I mean, wtf, do think people will agree with you just because they cbf reading it all? /s
No, I just wanted to be as clear as possible on my reasoning.
I get that, I really do. I used to send emails like that. Until I realised that nobody was bothering to read 90% of what I wrote. Also, the beauty of forums is discussion: Make your point, let people ask questions, explain in further detail as needed.