so kett are bascially space romans v3?

I'd say the Kett are more like Nazi Germany than Ancient Rome. Between the abductions, the labor camps, the experiments on "lesser races," and the obsession with being genetically superior, it's kind of difficult to see the Kett in any other light.

>the romans thought of themselves superior to non-romans
>they had labor camps/slavery
>they assimilated (forcefully) other people - similar to exaltation except the space magic transformations
>there were true romans and just romans, forgot the name of the ancient roman book author but he really hated north africans for migrating to rome for instance

Nazi Germany based a lot of its ideals from the ancient romans....

I think comparing the kett to any human cilivisation is difficult, although I also think the Nazis come closest just because that is pretty much always the image that writers go back to and that they surely tried to evoke here. The turians are probably still the most roman-y of them all from their whole cultural composition and I don't really see it much with Protheans, other than that they're also an empire, since all the info we have about them is from someone who was born long after their actual empire was gone and seems a bit shaky as a result.

There is one important difference the kett have from any earth civilisation: from what Lexi says, they do not actually have functioning reproductive organs, so this actually seems to be their only way to survive as a species (of course begging the question why they don't try to engineer themselves some reproductive organs, but maybe that is beyond their power, or they phased that out when exaltation became the main doctrine and they saw it as the superior way to reproduce). I would find it interesting if they really couldn't reproduce any other way and attempts to design themselves to reproduce didn't work. They could be the Jardaan's first failed experiment or something, and they had to find another way to survive which was then retroactively dressed up as a religion to make it more palatable. It would make them at least sliiiiightly more than the one-dimensional husks/darkspawn they are at the moment, though not exactly redeemable. (jk that's not actually gonna happen because creating races that are presented as evil to the bone and can be killed without remorse is not actually problematic at all if you make them look like Nazis first, checkmate, just ask any fantasy writer who ripped off orcs)

Roman themes are pretty superficial, pretty much limited to the idea of a higher Senate. Otherwise, the themes you mention aren't much different from any other racist authoritarian empire, of which there were plenty.

Roman themes usually focus on architecture, clothing, or naming conventions, as well as a militaristic/imperialistic bent. The Kett are theocratic in a way the Romans weren't- converting by force rather than conquering as the other- and their military namings reflect this. The Romans also didn't have any big thing on kidnapping and forcibly racially/culturally annihalating/assimilating their conquests, so there's that too.


Unlike the original trilogy in which the races neatly aligned upon historical societal tropes, the new species of MEA don't neatly align with any specific historical parallel.

I think it's the same with vikings: plenty of people seem to think that the Ironborn are like vikings or that the Viking series is historically accurate. The former bothers me more to be honest than the latter: I think it's because it's more egregious.

Great point!

The process of exaltation kinda limits the direct comparison to both Romans and Nazis, imo. Nazis wanted to be the dominant race, not absorb other races. Romans absorbed other races in their expansionist years, but those absorbed kept their cultural and religious identities for the most part.

The religious aspect + imperialism + "you are now one of us" seems more like to space-Qunari to me. I, too, would like to see that idea developed more. Or any idea about who they are and why they do what they do. I am sick of cardboard baddies.

I meant more so in our modern understanding of the term "nation." No one was as diverse (encompassing the Mediterranean) or provided the same amount of rights as Ancient Rome. China was xenophobic and largely limited travel and exploration outside its borders. Persia is a legitimate alternative as they were Rome's main rival during the Parthian era and afterwards. Rome even conquered Parthia/Persia for a time under Trajan, but they didn't have the military force to sustain such a large body of land indefinitely.

Under your framing of the term, we could also talk about Ancient India as well as Ancient Egypt before the Romans conquered them.

Ancient Rome is easily the most misunderstood ancient civilization for the simple fact that it is referenced everywhere in pop culture and has influenced every modern western civilization. Hollywood and the entertainment industry always likes to glorify the violence, the battles, and the brutality of Ancient Rome. Yet, they never focus on the diversity, the amount of rights Roman citizens had, and the sheer wealth and stability that Rome maintained for centuries thanks to Augustus' Principate. I studied Ancient Rome (The Republic and The Principate/Empire) in undergraduate studies, as I was a History and Government double major. Anytime someone references Rome, I can't help myself but jump into the conversation.

Yikes. No need to get defensive. I've studied a lot of ancient civilizations, from Sumeria, Athens, Rome, Egypt, China, India, etc. My point is that Rome was largely unique because of how multicultural it was, and that had everything to do with location. By modern understanding of the term "nation," I was referring to the diversity, and the amount of rights and freedoms citizens had. Now, if we use the term "civilization" instead, then obviously Rome was not the first as Sumeria is the first known civilization. Rome is always going to come up as one of the most important civilizations for the simple fact that it is the foundation of all western nations. That's not in any way meant to lessen or discredit the other great ancient civilizations of human history.

Regardless, I think we can both agree that the Kett have far more in common with Hitler's Nazi Germany than they do with Ancient Rome (The Republic or The Principate).

I consider the kett more of a parallel to Nazi Germany and a negative interpretation of the Spanish Conquistadors.

The problem is that it seems like the writers deliberately made the kett a race of bad guys to be killed off without sympathy; they're portrayed as a fanatically pseudo-religious and always blatantly evil aliens (it's treated the same as a religion except it lacks any God, god or higher being, any supernatural elements or any moral teachings). No one in the game has anything positive to say about the kett and there are so many Nazi parallels (psychotic leader, aggressive expansion, death camps, invasive experiments, master race obsession) it's uncharacteristically unsubtle of Bioware (it could only be more blatant if the kett had swastikas and shouted "Heil Archon!").

The kett use religious imagery, mostly from Christianity (given certain groups, especially leftists, anti-religion bias and tendency to single out Christianity, this makes me leery). The Archon has a crest that grows above his head into a circle that looks similar to the popular image of a halo, but he is a very blatant villain, even compared to other kett. Then the higher-ranking kett wear clothes with collars that evoke the image of a halo shining with light in their shape. Three of the kett of them are named using titles from real life religions; Christianity and Gnosticism. Archon comes Gnosticism, while Cardinal and Primus come from Christianity (the former being a clerical rank in Catholicism and Primus is one of the titles of the head of the Scottish Episcopal Church). Using real-life clerical titles for a fictional race of always evil aliens is very on-the-nose (while Archons in Gnosticism are considered antagonistic, Cardinal and Primus are not) and makes me leery of the intentions of the writers who came up with that and those who approved it; on a side note, imagine the reaction from fans and the media if said kett characters were called "Rabbi" instead of "Cardinal", or "Sheikh" instead of Primus.

This is in sharp contrast to the geth from the first game and the Qunari from Dragon age. In the first game the geth come across as a villainous robot race. The only religious imagery they have is a church shrine like room on Feros and how they worship Sovereign/the Reapers as a god/s and view Saren as the prophet of his/their return. There's no geth clergy, especially not one ripping titles from real-life religions, the geth have a sympathetic past where the quarians turned on them first and a later mission hints that not all geth follow Sovereign (the one where you can get Tali geth data). The Qunari in Dragon Age: Origins are portrayed better than the kett. We have a sympathetic Qunari (Sten) who helps us and we actually discuss the Qun with him, can form a rapport if we choose and there are members of the Qunari race who do not follow the Qun; the Qun itself has positive aspects (such as having traits of a meritocracy) and Qunari society is not as unrelentingly nasty as the kett are. While antagonistic in the second game, they have a sympathetic reason for attacking Kirkwall. The third game is a backwards step from sympathetic Qunari (there is less sympathy for any Qunari who follow the Qun in the game, but there is some).

In short, the kett are so similar to the deplorable Nazis that, at best, they're poorly written unsubtle protragonists and at worst straw characters for leftist propaganda.

Regarding the "Nazi's were overwhelmingly Christian" remark, that is actually not true.  While some have believed that Hitler was Christian, his personal views were complex. He was Raised Catholic (but disdained several virtues that Jesus taught, such as compassion.  Hitler liked Jesus' overturning the moneylenders in the temple but not His compassion), but by the time he was an adult he had a highly syncretized set of personal beliefs. He concluded a Concordat with the Vatican (overseen by Monsignor Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII) and several Protestant and Catholic priests advocated voting for Nazis over the Social Democrats, but this did not mean he supported Christianity or saw Nazi Culture as Christian.

He considered Christian concerns with compassion and charity a significant weakness. Hitler also believed the core values of Nazism – like nationalism, obedience and loyalty to the state – were contradicted by religious teachings.   He also clashed with the church on the subject of state education, while even aggressive atheist Mussolini let the church handle state education in Italy.  Still the Church was sufficiently powerful that Hitler never made any great campaign to curb or persecute Christians until 1936 onwards.  One such instance was the detainment of 15,000 Jehovah's Witness in the death camps where a quarter of them died. In the later stages of his regime, Hitler also sought to replace Christianity with the National Reich Church which, among other things, sought to prohibit the printing of Bibles and replace the Christian cross with the swastika. The "German Christian" movement was formed to fuse Nazi ideology with Christianity, aiming to overhaul and then replace the latter.

What I'm saying about the kett is that at best they are poorly-written antagonists (because they are unsubtle, two-dimensional and unoriginal) at worst the writers had the agenda of making the kett to lampoon one or more things they dislike (while things such as the Nazis goals and eugenics are worthy or derision, Christianity, as in God and His teachings and when people truly follow Him, are not despite what some people say).

The No True Scotsman would only be the case if I applied it to all the Nazis, some were some weren't.  Hitler's beliefs were stated in public speeches... and he never lied, right?  Politicians don't lie, eh?  (sarcastically) Hitler was someone who's word could be trusted, eh; Hitler who according to notes, books, photos, eyewitnesses and footage was a skilled manipulator?  It's unlikely Hitler would've risen to power in the (comparative to today more) devout Germany while being openly anti-Christian, so if he had those sentiments he would've kept them under wraps.  Similar views probably played a role in why Mussolini had several detractors, his enforces encountered lots of opposition and caused a lot of dissent (when he dialed back his anti-Christian sentiment things started going more smoothly though Mussolini was still on a deplorable path). Also while Hitler spoke well of Christianity in public yet he often spoke derisively of Christianity in his private notes and according to witnesses.  

Hitler wasn't excommunicated because it was unnecessary.  He had left the Catholic church and was never truly Christian and/or an apostate.  There was also a fear of the likely violent reprisal if a formal declaration of excommunication was issued, which wouldn't have reigned him in.  When Hilter's promotion of Nazism, which is fully contrary to Christianity was recognized and condemned by the bishops in Germany, Hitler’s response to the bishops was to send all the Jewish Catholics (Jewish by ethnicity) he could find to the death camps (Jews and homosexuals weren't the only people in the death camps, they just tend to get the most media focus).


The fact that he turned on Christianity AND SOUGHT TO REPLACE IT WITH NAZI IDEOLOGY in the latter stages of his reign proves what I am saying and is not "No True Scotsman" in regards to Hitler.  If we're discussing logical fallacies, I'm getting the impression of the Cherry-Picker Fallacy and the Association Fallacy from you (trying to declare all Nazis were Christians and then smear all Christians by association).  Now unless this becomes a discussion, let's stay on topic of this thread.  

Heads up, you're really digging yourself into the Cherry-Picker and Association Fallacies now; aside from how I think you and I may have to agree to disagree on our views of how real and right God and His Word the Bible are...

"permitted hundreds of thousands, if not, millions of Christian Germans to commit crimes against humanity on a scale never seen before"? sounds like you're trying to smear us Christians today for the actions of a few.  I never said everything was a lie, I am pointing out facts and that Hitler was a skilled manipulator.  Why do you have such a grudge against the Catholic church?  I'm getting the impression of personal agenda rather than rational argument.  The Crusades?  Started by Muslims when Christian nations in Europe responded to the call for help from the Christian Byzantine Empire which was under unprovoked attack from Muslim Sejic Turks.  The Spanish Inquisition?  Who while they could be ruthless had a reputation has been greatly exaggerated by their detractors, only killed approximately 3,000 of the 150,000 people they trialed during their 356 year history according to their detailed records which exist today and they were often fairer than the secular courts at the time (criminals were allowed to testify and torture was ruled to be a last resort for confession).  The Catholic church sex scandal?  horrible situation handled poorly and now are settling the matter with arrests; An organization is not judged by the most evil of its members (that is the Association Fallacy). Even Jesus had Judas.

"a scale never seen before"?   If it's about ideology, Stalin gave Hitler a run for his money and Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist militant atheist  www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/   

Mao Zedong was also pushing Marxism (his beliefs have been speculated from deist to atheist, but he was certainly non-religious and pushing Marxism, which is an atheistic ideology) and he killed around 36 million; shall we now smear atheists by association with Stalin and Mao Zedong?  I say no, though you seem determined to do that to Christians, God and Christianity.  I will close with some of the Words of Jesus Himself. 


“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?"  Matthew 7:15-16

“So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit."  Matthew 7:17-18

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’"  Matthew 7:21-23