The Council is BAD

I agree on everything but the points about the Krogan.

Sure it was morally ambiguous to uplift them, but at the time an apocalyptic invasion was taking place. The Asari and Salarians had no way of telling if the Rachni would ever stop their attacks, and the background lore of that time never says that the Rachni were only targeting Council worlds. For all we know Tuchunka could have been swarmed by space faring insectoid aliens and it's population wiped out if the Rachni would have won the war. Even the Reapers, who were specifically avoiding certain types of species, garnered a need for all out defense against hostile invaders so the Krogan uplift doesn't particularly strike me as any more self-serving to the survival of the known galaxy then it is when Shepard is scooping up Prothean artifacts and recruiting various species' assets for the common defense.

As for the Krogan themselves, I personally don't buy the notion that they are not at fault for their actions leading up to the Rebellions. They were smart enough to realize that one of their neighboring planets was a caustic and lethally toxic planet when they asked the Salarians to bring them there (despite living in a post nuclear holocaust/dark age society). They were smart enough to formulate battle tactics and coordinate planetary sieges despite their recent uplift. They were intelligent enough to have a seat on the council, a position that gave them a one third's vote on galactic politics and use that to grant them as much leeway as they could get away with. And they knew the ramifications of their 'soft invasion' of the galaxy, they just chose to ignore them.

Using the notion of racial underdevelopment to excuse Krogan actions during the Rebellions is a copout (IMO) and one that cheapens their characterization via whitewashing. Its a cyclical argument I find, one that changes to suit the side of the Krogan. Either they are 'too primitive' to be trusted with things like population control and world management, or they are full members of society, and as such are subject to harsh punishment when they decided to set themselves up against the rest of said society.

Eh, Cerberus is just as bad.

Worse actually since they only see humanity as being the ones in charge.

And that's even before they decided to inject themselves with Reaper tech.

I kind of agree with the op's notion, and kind of don't.
The thing is, the council at times does seem evil, either intended or not.
At other times it is apparent that the original intention of it is to be the good guys.

I guess a lot of that has to do with ME being primarily a game-series, and several later information bits of ME2/3 contradicting the originally laid out informations. Especially the Terminus systems and what they are and are not drastically changed between ME1 and 2.
Yet I don't think the contradictions are always intentional - see your point about the Quarian chosen world. We come across several other planets that would be much more viable for Quarian settlement, yet -during all dialogue- they insist that retaking their homeworld is the only viable option. There are also several planets whose description sounds more like they should be part of the Attican Traverse or even council space instead of the Terminus systems - e.g., Garvug a world given to the Krogan. By all accords this should be at least somewhere near the council ruled space, yet is not.

Another in-universe thing, is that the council is not always and necessarily in charge. As we see in ME3, a lot of the actual political powers actually lies within the council species own governments. Council species who themselves have different opinions about what is 'good' or 'right'.
About Ekuna, the world the Elcor got: According to the codex entry for Aite (Project: Overlord) the whole Phoenix Massing was considered council space at a time. So any colonization attempts (like the original first settlement wave on Aite) must be run by the council. The Quarians acted in violation of that and were in turn denied.
I could not find anything stating that an entire council fleet was send there, only that the Quarians where given a month to evacuate before their settlements would be bombarded. For a bombardment a single ship would have been enough. As we seen in 2184 w.r.t. Israfil in the Micah system, sending a single ship into the terminus systems does not seem to be problem.

I had another point about the minor races not being represented, IIRC this was w.r.t something Avina said about the council races responsibilities, but I can't remember it anymore. Suffice to say it was going along the lines of the rule of only 3 or 4 species representatives over all others being obviously less than perfect.

Anyway: The whole Council as we got it seems be born out of the games' necessity to have a very limited number of people in power that are always nay-sayers (looking at Sparatus in particular).

I don't dispute that Mass Effect canon is filled with contradictions due to poor writing (or editing). That's very possible too but it's not very fun to talk about. Regarding the Terminus Systems, it could be argued that it was the Council's mismanagement of its vassals that created the Terminus. They failed to restore the status-quo after the quarians were cast down, failed to properly manage the batarians, eventually causing them to withdraw from the Citadel completely, and this is what lead to the Terminus Systems, which themselves caused much instability in the Skyllian Verge and Attican Traverse.

I think an interesting alternative scenario to imagine would be humanity going rogue early on in ME1 when the Council fails to convict Saren. In this alternate universe they mobilize for full on war with the geth... which might mean reaching out and finally establishing diplomatic relations with the Migrant Fleet. Together the two just might be able to plan out a campaign that neutralizes the Terminus and then allows them to invade the Perseus Veil. Imagine the aftermath... they'd be poised to create their own anti-Council, perhaps they could even annex Omega and place it there, from which to mock the Citadel? It's a fun "What if?"

The Alliance's means are indeed shady but their goal was always clear: "protection and advancement of the human race", or whatever Miranda is trying to attribute to Cerberus in ME2. At the other hand, while Cerberus's means are surely questionable and the games are trying to tell us on this basis that they're bad (failing btw.), we never learned about their goals from a reliable source until Karpyshyn settled it once and for all after ME2.

What I mean is that goals will always be a more important factor than means when judging people and Cerberus in ME2 is much more shady (undefined actually, because the writers were apparently still unsure what their place in the story is) than the Alliance in this matter.
Oh come on, the "Cerberus as an Alliance cell" part was expunged before ME2 and reminded to be false a couple times after.

That's a far more succinct way of putting it but to get the maximum impact I decided I wanted to really drag out their dirty laundry.




True, I remember being confused the first time I read Ascension. I still wish they'd kept things on track from ME1. Rogue Alliance black ops, especially if revealed later to not actually be rogue, is more interesting to me than a human survivalist paramilitary group that has always been independent. I remember during the ME2 days speculating about whether Hackett was in on it. He's underhanded enough that I totally believed it possible back then. An apparently "rogue" operations group for the Alliance, if used just right, would be a fantastic asset for them.

Where is it mentioned that Ekuna does not have bacterial life? I could not even find information that it supports dextro-amino-acid life forms, which seems unreasonable when the Elcor colony there thrives.

I understand your reasoning but I disagree with it. As I see it, in the moment of the decision the choice is whether or not to risk the immediate destruction of the galaxy over potentially gaining long-term stability. Mind you, instability could have its own benefit it means a military build-up. My Shepard chooses "Focus on Sovereign" because the consequences of failing to destroy it are just too severe. If you spare the Council from the geth only to then fail to destroy Sovereign then you won't have saved anybody.




I can't think of any example of the Council helping anyone. I'm sure it happens in small ways when there is no real risk or cost for them. Even during the build up to the Krogan Rebellions the Council took no overt action and quietly prepared until the krogan finally attacked an asari world.




Something that I don't recall being explicitly stated but that would be a logical consideration, is that if the quarians settle down and the geth have not been neutralized then the possibility exists that the geth might attack and finish them off. Retaking Rannoch means not only having a world they are better adapted too, but it also means destroying their greatest enemy.

Another alternative is to apply to the turians to become a client race. The Hierarchy seems pretty good about taking care of its vassal species.

Do were know this to be true? As far as we know, Sovereign offered them significantly better tech for their services. A segment of the geth took the deal while the rest remained beyond the Perseus Veil.

That said, we know for a fact that the Reapers have taken control of other benevolent (or at least non-aggressive) synthetic races in the past. Perhaps they would have enslaved them had all geth rejected the offer. We'll never know.

It is though because the battle against Sovereign has the same stakes as a war with the Reapers as a whole. If you loose to Sovereign you lose everything then and there. The Reapers enter the galaxy, capture the Citadel, and turn off the mass relay network. Game over. Viewed in that context an argument can be made that the destruction of Sovereign should be prioritized over anything else.

Yes, that's what I meant. Better way of a putting it.