Udina, sacrificing the galaxy for political ambition

He's kinda both, isn't he? Beginning of ME1, he's definitely the EarthFirst! guy against the machine aka Council. But, once Shepard gets him what he wants - ie the Council on his side - then he turns into the backstabbing asshole. Same thing in ME3 - at the beginning he's all about doing all he can for the war effort, he just takes it waaay too far into power hungry dumbassholeryness (yep, just made that up) which gets him quite dead for his trouble.

His character is not that fleshed out and he is a victim of some of the plot holes of the trilogy. Like, how did he get his position and how long has he had it? What is his relation to the human governments on Earth and what authority does he have? What were his actions between ME1 and ME2? Or ME1 and ME3 for that matter.

A lot of it comes down to speculation. However, we get indications of hostility towards Shepard on several occasions. Don't know if my view of him redeems him as a person but here's the take: Udina has nothing against Shepard personally. He just thinks everyone else is giving Shepard too much praise. It's not based on jealousy, he sees Shepard as a cog in the machine. An important one but not a Messiah or someone to be put on a pedestal the way he thinks Anderson does.

In the intro to ME1 he asks "is this the person we want protecting the galaxy?" and Anderson replies "he/she is the only person who can protect the galaxy". I interpret this as Udina viewing Shepard as a soldier with a unique resume that can benefit humanity while Anderson sees much more in his protege. At the 1st encounter on the Citadel, Udina complains about Anderson bringing "his entire crew with him". Once again, he does not buy into Anderson's view of Shepard. Udina keeps everyone at an arms length to prevent personal feelings to interfere with his decisions.

From Udina's perspective it's rational to prevent Anderson from taking part in the investigation of Saren and give Shepard the command of the Normandy even though this puts Anderson in a bad light. The same rationale applies to grounding the Normandy before the Ilos mission. Shepard is a soldier defying orders, may go rogue and wants to divert the fleets defending the Citadel against the Geth to some far off corner of the galaxy. All Shepard has is some obscure vision and the support of his former captain who holds a personal grudge against Saren. This does indeed "seem a bit far fetched".

In the end Shepard saves the day but Udina remains detached of emotions. Instead of praising Shepard's deeds, he acknowledges Shepard's last comment. The work has just started and humanity must prepare for the future ahead.

The TL;DR conclusion is that I can see the logic behind Udina's actions from his perspective, at least as far as ME1 goes.

In ME2 Udina appears briefly but we don't know what he's been doing the past 2 years. The Citadel has returned to it's former political squabbles and he's been part of those. Only a few vague references shed any light on this plot hole and apparently Bioware didn't deem it necessary to fill us in in order to extend the story. Udina just accepts the pragmatic approach of the Council to keep Shepard out of sight and out of mind.

Unfortunately, his story line falls into total obscurity in ME3 because of these plot holes. Why did he side with Cerberus knowing they were a terrorist organization and why did Cerberus want to take control of the Citadel anyway?

Maybe Cerberus managed to convince Udina that their end justifies the means solution could defeat the Reapers. Seeing half the population of the galaxy crippled by indecision and the other half wanting to go out dying as martyrs gave him the final push. Cerberus had defeated the Collectors by themselves and may have told him about some technology and/or intelligence they had obtained from the Collector base to give humanity an edge over the Reapers.

If this is the case, one could argue that he remains consistent in his unemotional and rational approach to surviving the Reaper invasion. If Cerberus provided a tangible solution, he would see the odds being much better, compared to the rest of the galaxy just acting out of fear or hope in some miracle like a Prothean doomsday device.

All in all, I don't view Udina as particular Paragon or Renegade. He may have had and tried to promote his personal ambitions like joining the Council, but he believed he had humanity's best interests in mind all the way to the end. Too bad Bioware didn't expand on this story. Maybe it would have side tracked the main plot line but I think it had more potential...

I like Udina.

Regards to locking the SR1 down. Before he says that, the turian councilor says, "Ambassador Udina. I get the sense that Commander Shepard isn't willing to let this go". I would not be surprised if Udina didn't lock the ship down, the council would have. 

Before choosing a councilor, depending on what happened with the council and what dialogue the player chooses, Shepard will say " When I saw an opportunity to get rid of the council, I took it". Udina agreed with that. I like that. He puts humanity first, as it should be. excellent.

In ME3, he was trying to do what he could to help Earth. Unfortunately getting involved with Cerberus wasn't the right thing to do. Its too bad he's killed. The other thing is, Bioware intended the coup to take place after Thessia, but because of time, that didn't happen. No idea if Udina would be killed or remain alive.

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. Although it does crack me up watching Udina and Shep turn into moustache twirling villains in the Council destroyed/renegade playthrough ending.

Oh, I have no devotion to the Council. If I had my way, they'd have all burned up in the Citadel at the end of ME3. Apparently there were in hidden compartments or something that saved them. At the very least, I would have enjoyed the keepers doing to their bodies whatever they were doing when Shepard went up the beam.

After every mission, good or bad, Udina has something negative to say. Anderson says as much after Udina walks off.

Last point, ME3 didn't let players "finally kill Udina". That was the script of the game and there was no way around it. I do agree with themikefest that it would have made more sense to wound Udina rather than kill him so that he could be questioned. That guy was getting killed regardless of whether Shepard or A/K pulled the trigger.

As for now, Bioware at least tried to do in-game politics better on SWTOR. As you can indirectly, alter certain rulers/power-players.

That said, Mass Effect trilogy have a skewed space militarism even if it wasn't all too faithful to real life. I actually dislike the glossing of Alliance politics and hyped military bureaucracy. But it was during a period of wartime.

But Udina's death kinda prove how replaceable the Citadel Councilors were. Despite him being visibly the only human leader, the Alliance government doesn't exactly destabilized as an aftermath.

Or, if he believed Shepard and Anderson, he could follow Goyle's path and say that locking the Normandy down violates the Alliance's sovereignity and threaten them with war if they do so. Worked last time.

^^^Also curious. It wasn't in ME: Revelation. I also couldn't find anything about it in the wiki entry on her.

I really miss the politics of the first game. It is put best when Anderson sums it up for Shepard. I don't recall the quote exactly, but he basically says that he can see both sides and that the proper way forward is a reasonable middle ground. If the Alliance just does everything the Council wants it to then it will never advance and grow. However it would also be folly to just defy the Council at every turn and make trouble. To prosper, the Alliance needs to balance pursuing its own interests with integrating peacefully into the galactic community. This aspect of Mass Effect is missing from all following entries in the series.




I think the plot of ME3 would make more sense if after the destruction of Arcturus and the fall of Earth, the Systems Alliance actually did fall apart. With Cerberus nerfed in Retribution (or just gone crazy), Shepard is left with no support this time. No allies. There is no benefactor looking over Shepard's shoulder and telling him what to do and how to do it. It's just all up to the hero... to the Shepard, you know? As well there would be so many interesting and compelling ideas you could pull out of that, such as having some factions of the Alliance, or Terra Firma, aiding the Reapers in the misguided belief that acquiescing to their demands will spare the lives of the billions of people still trapped on Earth.




I would speculate that Udina made the shrewd decision that there was more for humanity to gain by giving the Council its way on this one rather than fighting it out. After all, humanity's first Spectre has been a success and the Council believes Saren has been neutralized. They are getting a little tired of Shepard now but as long as Udina plays ball they'll be content to let Shepard wait and cool off. Everybody wins, or so the Council and Udina think.

My issue was that, once Shepard's actions got him a Council seat, he then turned around and stabbed him in the back.  Something about Shepard being more trouble than he was worth.  And Udina siding with the Council against Shepard did NOT help his standing among his fellow Councilors.