So... why exactly are we fighting the Sentients?

[Loza03]

1 hour ago, TARINunit9 said:

No, I don't really think I could say the same for them. The Corpus are opportunistic and capitalistic, not genocidal. The Grineer are genocidal, but to a far less degree than Hunhow, i.e. perfectly willing to enslave rather than kill. Both sides are also very pragmatic, and are willing to set aside their pride for critical threats such as the Infested. Grineer, Tenno, and Corpus are all fragments of the Orokin Empire -- they are enemies by circumstance rather than by inheritance, looking to capitalize on a power vacuum and scarce resources. While they are at odds to each other due to rivalries, they are not thematically predisposed to violence

The Holocaust also had a lot of its victims acting as slave labour in concentration camps, and we've yet to see Hunhow make a major play against any of the factions other than the Tenno. The most we've seen is him monitoring, albeit lethally, Lua and Uranus. His scanners are lethal to Grineer - his fighters would undoubtedly be unstoppable to them. He has the power to target key locations in the system. Why hasn't he?

Even assuming that we'd stop the above plan, Hunhow can take out cephalons and invade their data weave. Why would he start with the relatively well-defended Tenno network and not start with the Corpus one, which would presumably be far less advanced and unable to stop him, subsequently invade a large chunk of the Corpus fleet, if not all of it, and then turn it on first the unprepared Tenno, then everything else, backed up with the now-unchallenged Sentient fighters? We don't have direct access to the Corpus network - it would take time for him to be discovered, especially considering that he managed to stay hidden for a long while whilst on our network.

1 hour ago, TARINunit9 said:

Hek is a lot closer to Mussolini: dangerous and genocidal, but so narcissistic and self-absorbed that he can't actually accomplish anything

I mean, does it really matter which insane WW2 dictator the Grineer specifically take after?

1 hour ago, TARINunit9 said:

I don't really see any parallels between Hunhow and Vader/Vegeta at all. I don't see anything in Hunhow that would ever be grounds for redemption. You bring up storytelling tropes, but Hunhow is dangerously close to the Complete Monster: nobody likes him, nobody outside of his minions thinks of him as anything but a threat to be exterminated, and he is never given any levity (contrast with Hek, who is equally evil but repeatedly shown to be absurd and wacky)

Neither did Vegeta and Vader. Yeah, they're all very different characters in most other ways, but Vegata's slow-burn redemption arc started with him coming to blow up the Earth, murdering one of only 3 known members of his species and with full intent to kill the last one. He proceeds to be a flat-out secondary villain for another half arc before he finally starts his redemption arc with (unwillingly) teaming with two of the heroes.  Vader, on the other hand, actually blew up a peaceful, unarmed, planet and killed several of Luke's friends, tries blowing up another planet, kidnaps Han and Leia, intends to corrupt first his son, and then his daughter when he discovers her... he does basically nothing good until his switch redemption, with the only indication that he is in any way redeemable being Luke's say-so, which even he winds up doubting. Neither villain particularly screams 'redeemable'.

As for Hunhow? Consider that we've literally only met one other being who knows him personally. Everyone else either thought of him as an enemy or military ally. I also usually find that it is characters who don't have levity that are given redemption arcs - usually 'funny villains' are that way because they enjoy evil, not because of some greater purpose. For an example: Kid Icarus Uprising, Medusa and Hades. Medusa is a played-straight, serious villain. Hades is hilarious. Medusa gets a redemption in the final boss, Hades is the final boss. There are exceptions of course (Viridi being a big one, though many of her funny moments come after her redemption, and she is a lot more serious than Hades). Or, for an extreme example - the Joker. Strictly speaking, he's the 'funny guy villain' taken to the logical end point.

Also... we pilot faceless death machines that kill thousands without remorse, or pause, in some of the most horrible ways possible. We do not speak, we do not flinch. We ignore gunfire sent at us, and even if you do take us down, we come right back. From the perspective of the Grineer, we easily qualify as the 'complete monster' trope. Literally and metaphorically. Even when we're on their side - if you look at the Mag Prime codex entry, we get a rare outside look at a Tenno allied to the Narrator, and they literally only save a soldier to serve as a meat shield against the Sentients. That's how we look from the outside. Also consider the numerous parallels between the Sentients and the Tenno Orokin accidents, originally involved in their colonisation project, possess powers they fear, even musically they're both associated with Taiko drums - the Tenno have the middle of the drums and the Sentients the edges, which can be heard in 'Hunhow'. All that in mind - it's not all that likely these two groups might get associated with each other in the end.

2 hours ago, TARINunit9 said:

The big reveal in the Natah quest is showing that Lotus doesn't really have any of her heritage in her. She's technically a Sentient, but lacking all of their qualities and attributes. That is why she is not our enemy, because she lacks any and all themes of being a Sentient

This is followed up in Second Dream where Hunhow threatens to subjugate Lotus back into a Sentient: this is presented as nothing short of a complete erasure of Lotus's identity. To become a Sentient again would be to completely lose all characteristics that make her our ally. She would join our enemy, the Sentients

This is precisely the opposite of what he says he wants.

"They will claim you are riven. They will try to reclaim you. I will not be able to stop them."

Indicating that he would want to stop them from 'reclaiming' her. Which, considering that 'Reclaim' is both defined as to 'retrieve something lost' or to 'cultivate waste land', this indicates they either want to bring back her old self or use her as fresh 'soil' for a new entity.

2 hours ago, TARINunit9 said:

And as a final chapter to this, it's shown in Hostile Mergers that the entire Lotus identity is a lie. Natah was captured and brainwashed into being the Lotus, an identity that was a complete fabrication. When she is stripped of the Lotus personality (or brainwashed by her mother) she takes on a fully Sentient identity -- and IMMEDIATELY turns hostile and seeks our destruction. As a Sentient, Natah wan'ts nothing to do with us outside of slaughtering us

As people have pointed out before me, once someone admits to being brainwashed at some point, and is behaving outside of their established character, it is very difficult to tell which is the brainwashed personality. Personally, I'm pretty sure Lotus is presently being brainwashed, which means she's under the control of Mother - one other Sentient. Again - we've only met four, and in the same context our enemies would encounter us were they player controlled.

2 hours ago, TARINunit9 said:

It is hammered in time and again, Sentient = Enemy. There is no allying. There is no truce. There is no agreement. There is only war. The Tenno and the Sentients will either flee or fight, they will not make friends

At no point prior to the Gradivus dilemma were the Grineer or Corpus shown to have any kind of possibility for a truce, only War. As you point out:

2 hours ago, TARINunit9 said:

If a "Sentient civil war" were to happen, I don't think they would identify as Sentients. Perrin Sequence do not identify as Corpus, Steel Meridian do not identify as Grineer

Any that didn't want to kill us were explicitly defined as not a part of that faction, such as Darvo. And yet, the Gradivus dilemma still happened, where we explicitly teamed up with the Grineer or the Corpus.

I'm also using 'Sentient' as their species name here, since whilst they probably would have their own faction name, I have no idea what that would be.

[TARINunit9]

29 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

For an example: Kid Icarus Uprising, Medusa and Hades. Medusa is a played-straight, serious villain. Hades is hilarious. Medusa gets a redemption in the final boss, Hades is the final boss. There are exceptions of course (Viridi being a big one, though many of her funny moments come after her redemption, and she is a lot more serious than Hades). Or, for an extreme example - the Joker. Strictly speaking, he's the 'funny guy villain' taken to the logical end point.

Hoo boy, it's reading this that makes it clear we are NOT going to agree on anything no matter how many replies we trade. So for my last reply let me just correct some of your canonical errors and let you go about with your "hey it would be cool if we weren't enemies with the Sentients anymore" shpiel:

Medusa didn't redeem herself for sh*t. Her attack against Hades was purely for her own gain. She still wants Pit and Palutena dead, she just wants Hades dead MORE

Joker's crimes are never really played for laughs. The clown-like nature of his aesthetic is deliberately set up to make his irredeemable crimes that much more heinous, not less

39 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

Vader, on the other hand, actually blew up a peaceful, unarmed, planet and killed several of Luke's friends, tries blowing up another planet, kidnaps Han and Leia, intends to corrupt first his son, and then his daughter when he discovers her... he does basically nothing good until his switch redemption, with the only indication that he is in any way redeemable being Luke's say-so, which even he winds up doubting. Neither villain particularly screams 'redeemable'.

Vader didn't want to use the Death Star. He thinks it's a meaningless gesture that wastes valuable resources. It's purely Tarkin's idea. Vader is a general, not a serial killer. In fact Vader shows repeatedly that he prefers prisoners taken ALIVE and that killing is to be avoided when possible, be it his own son, hostile political fugitives aboard the Tantive IV, or innocent citizens of Cloud City

This is not a savage like Tarkin was, this is a man with honor. He is simply using his honor for the purpose of tyranny

32 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

As people have pointed out before me, once someone admits to being brainwashed at some point, and is behaving outside of their established character, it is very difficult to tell which is the brainwashed personality. Personally, I'm pretty sure Lotus is presently being brainwashed, which means she's under the control of Mother - one other Sentient. Again - we've only met four, and in the same context our enemies would encounter us were they player controlled.

While I agree with the semantics, they are irrelevant to my point: Natah is acting pro-Sentient. Regardless of why, the story presents this as nothing short of utterly and entirely antagonistic. So long as Natah identifies as pro-Sentient, she is the enemy. If Natah were to break away, she would no longer identify as pro-Sentient

Sentient = Enemy, regardless of reason

35 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

Also... we pilot faceless death machines that kill thousands without remorse, or pause, in some of the most horrible ways possible. We do not speak, we do not flinch. We ignore gunfire sent at us, and even if you do take us down, we come right back. From the perspective of the Grineer, we easily qualify as the 'complete monster' trope. Literally and metaphorically. Even when we're on their side - if you look at the Mag Prime codex entry, we get a rare outside look at a Tenno allied to the Narrator, and they literally only save a soldier to serve as a meat shield against the Sentients. That's how we look from the outside. Also consider the numerous parallels between the Sentients and the Tenno Orokin accidents, originally involved in their colonisation project, possess powers they fear, even musically they're both associated with Taiko drums - the Tenno have the middle of the drums and the Sentients the edges, which can be heard in 'Hunhow'. All that in mind - it's not all that likely these two groups might get associated with each other in the end.

Wrong trope. The Grineer know exactly why we kill them: THEY declared war on US. They still want us dead, which is WHY they declared war on us, but "enemy soldier" and "remorseless serial killer" are two VERY different things. The Grineer and Corpus have every reason to put Tenno in the former.

If anyone believes the Tenno to be the monstrous embodiment of evil, it's the Infested

[Loza03]

11 minutes ago, TARINunit9 said:

Medusa didn't redeem herself for sh*t. Her attack against Hades was purely for her own gain. She still wants Pit and Palutena dead, she just wants Hades dead MORE

As stated with the Vegeta example, this frequently happens as the instigator for a redemption arc. One she doesn't get because she's killed immediately thereafter. At the end of the day, she's fighting for good, even if her morals aren't that. Same with Dark Pit. His motivation is also purely selfish - he wants to continue staying alive. Keeping Pit alive just so happens to align with that, and part of keeping Pit alive means helping the good guys. But he's pretty much considered 'redeemed'

12 minutes ago, TARINunit9 said:

Joker's crimes are never really played for laughs. The clown-like nature of his aesthetic is deliberately set up to make his irredeemable crimes that much more heinous, not less

That's exactly my point

Joker's the logical of the 'played for laughs villain' and thus acts as a deconstruction therein, because the played for laughs villain is usually that way because they enjoy what they do. The Joker absolutely does, and does absolutely horrifying things, which brings just how evil that is into the spotlight. By contrast, serious villains are that way for a variety of reasons, which sometimes is because they don't see any other way to achieve that goal. If given such a road, they may take it. No funny villain will do that, because they're sadists and enjoy what they do.

16 minutes ago, TARINunit9 said:

Vader didn't want to use the Death Star. He thinks it's a meaningless gesture that wastes valuable resources. It's purely Tarkin's idea. Vader is a general, not a serial killer. In fact Vader shows repeatedly that he prefers prisoners taken ALIVE and that killing is to be avoided when possible, be it his own son, hostile political fugitives aboard the Tantive IV, or innocent citizens of Cloud City

This is not a savage like Tarkin was, this is a man with honor. He is simply using his honor for the purpose of tyranny

Every time he does that, there's a reason. He has a deal with one of the most powerful crime lords in the galaxy that would be as much of a threat to the empire as the rebels are if not placated - or worse, could actively join the Rebels, making them actually a potential threat militarily, so he keeps Han alive. He keeps Leia alive because she's a diplomat, and could be useful if manipulated. Keeping the appearance of a democracy helps avoid people rising up. Chewbacca is a potentially useful and valuable slave. Luke is a dark side apprentice for his master. As for those who aren't useful?

Remember the younglings? The rebels at the end of Rogue One? Every poor sod who's failed him?

25 minutes ago, TARINunit9 said:

While I agree with the semantics, they are irrelevant to my point: Natah is acting pro-Sentient. Regardless of why, the story presents this as nothing short of utterly and entirely antagonistic. So long as Natah identifies as pro-Sentient, she is the enemy. If Natah were to break away, she would no longer identify as pro-Sentient

Sentient = Enemy, regardless of reason

Again, this is an enemy faction vs species name. She is currently pro-mother. We have no idea whether or not mother speaks for all sentients. And given that we're discussing a potential plot twist, the sentients we encounter before that point have to be villains, otherwise it's not a twist.

26 minutes ago, TARINunit9 said:

Wrong trope. The Grineer know exactly why we kill them: THEY declared war on US. They still want us dead, which is WHY they declared war on us, but "enemy soldier" and "remorseless serial killer" are two VERY different things. The Grineer and Corpus have every reason to put Tenno in the former.

Different trope, same character interaction, just with the perspective flipped. I mean, that very page points out that the hero is behaving just like a monster, and many of the examples include protagonists who are arguably the villains of their stories, like original trilogy Kratos.

And again, we behaved and continue to behave the same way towards allies, so, honestly, it's not that inaccurate of a description to call us monsters on the field of battle. When was the last time you cared about the well-being of the Grineer in invasion missions, or the Syndicate operatives?

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

5 hours ago, (PS4)reddragonhrcro said:

Not necessarily true in this context, the Sentient have inhabited the Tau system and made it their home and the Tenno and other factions and cultures inhabit the Origin system.

The only reason the Sentient went to war and back to the Origin system was because of the Orokin as they knew that they would ruin the Tau system aswell. As long as both keep to their own it shouldn't be a problem.

Also in theory if there are 2 or more sentient intelligent life forms that are able to communicate and understand each other that occupy the same place I don't see why a peaceful coexistance shouldn't be possible. While it makes sense with animals and more primitive life forms, higher life forms may be an exception to this.

Homo neanderthalensis would probably have something to say to that. The next time I see one I'll be sure to ask them...

Oh wait our many-times-great grandparents lived in the same places as them at the same times, and occupied the same niche. Guess I won't be able to ask them what they thought about it. 

And before you point out that we're not primitives like our many-times-great grandpappy was, you're right. We're now much better at killing than they used to be. 

As long as we can get to one another, we will have a problem. 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

5 hours ago, nslay said:

How come we have Steel Meridian and Perrin Sequence, both originating from factions that are our enemies... but no Sentient factions? Are all sentients just magically anti-everything? I thought they were intelligent beings that could make up their own minds!

Sentinels and the Lotus. Although the ability to "make up their own minds" may not be entirely true in either case. 

[TARINunit9]

18 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

As stated with the Vegeta example, this frequently happens as the instigator for a redemption arc. One she doesn't get because she's killed immediately thereafter. At the end of the day, she's fighting for good, even if her morals aren't that. Same with Dark Pit. His motivation is also purely selfish - he wants to continue staying alive. Keeping Pit alive just so happens to align with that, and part of keeping Pit alive means helping the good guys. But he's pretty much considered 'redeemed'

That's exactly my point

Joker's the logical of the 'played for laughs villain' and thus acts as a deconstruction therein, because the played for laughs villain is usually that way because they enjoy what they do. The Joker absolutely does, and does absolutely horrifying things, which brings just how evil that is into the spotlight. By contrast, serious villains are that way for a variety of reasons, which sometimes is because they don't see any other way to achieve that goal. If given such a road, they may take it. No funny villain will do that, because they're sadists and enjoy what they do.

Every time he does that, there's a reason. He has a deal with one of the most powerful crime lords in the galaxy that would be as much of a threat to the empire as the rebels are if not placated - or worse, could actively join the Rebels, making them actually a potential threat militarily, so he keeps Han alive. He keeps Leia alive because she's a diplomat, and could be useful if manipulated. Keeping the appearance of a democracy helps avoid people rising up. Chewbacca is a potentially useful and valuable slave. Luke is a dark side apprentice for his master. As for those who aren't useful?

Remember the younglings? The rebels at the end of Rogue One? Every poor sod who's failed him?

The entire subversion that is Dark Pit's existence is that he isn't evil or all that selfish, he's just much more gruff to people and much more willing to exert his pride

My point with Vader is that he is NOT "redemption out of nowhere" like you seem to be billing him as (I think, please clarify if I am wrong). Vader is evil, he has done evil deeds, he has also acted with honor and put limits on his evil, and declared certain evil acts as distasteful to him. In the eyes of the audience, this is an evil character who could believably be redeemed IF the author wants to set that up (which as we know he did want to). It wasn't guaranteed, but it was believable, the audience had reason to believe it. We're not really in disagreement here, I'm just clarifying what my actual thesis was.

However, the younglings were a deliberate inversion, because it takes place before the "noble nuances" happened.

32 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

Again, this is an enemy faction vs species name. She is currently pro-mother. We have no idea whether or not mother speaks for all sentients. And given that we're discussing a potential plot twist, the sentients we encounter before that point have to be villains, otherwise it's not a twist.

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with this, mostly because the pseudo-Sentients, the Sentinels, were already introduced. That's a whole 'nother level of meta storytelling that I would rather let play out naturally

I do like your pro-mother way of describing it though

[Kerberos-3]

5 hours ago, TARINunit9 said:

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with this, mostly because the pseudo-Sentients, the Sentinels, were already introduced. That's a whole 'nother level of meta storytelling that I would rather let play out naturally

I do like your pro-mother way of describing it though

From what it sounds like to me, Hunhow may not fully see eye to eye with "Mother". There is potential for him to be redeemed, if only because he seems to care more about Natah's well being than the failures of a long-ceased War.

[ChaoticEdge]

On 2019-05-23 at 6:00 AM, WindBlade said:

But the Sentients? we kind of have a lot in common. We were both created, used and abused by the Orokin, to the point we were only fighting in the first place because the Orokin turned us into weapons in desperation, and we'd still be disposed-of trash otherwise.

For the truth, the sentient just hate kids and also they hate the void energy that is within us, pretty much they S#&$ scared that the kids turn to be growing up as orokin reborn $##t for sentient calculated too quickly in thoughts

On 2019-05-23 at 6:00 AM, WindBlade said:

And the Orokin are gone now. The main reason I can see we would be fight is dead and long gone.. and I cant help maybe we could be chill with the Sentients, or at least agree to leave each other alone. 

Well....not exactly all the orokin are gone, if we go back to the void and into the defend mission for there is those npc in the ice chamber...and those ice chamber pod that transport them...

Basically the sentient and orokin made the greatest mistake is not joining together because the sentient wanted to keep the liberation of planet worlds which good in words and good term because of the orokin wreck earth causing the plant's life in a horrible position for they were nearly all wiped out. Yes the sliver grove quest was the redemption of the mistakes and failure they did to the planet but this was during the war of the sentient so basically, the sentient has no attention still helping the orokin of this research as they end up still having a war without care with the social media of the orokin's view.   Yea pretty much everyone is common idiots even the smartest orokin can be an idiot *looking at ballas's death*.

[Nash]

you trying to have clem and the rest of the solar system, looking like this?

Sentients trying to become the new overlords, not sure about you but, I aint trying to look like Red Skull, homie.

[(PSN)reddragonhrcro]

11 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Homo neanderthalensis would probably have something to say to that. The next time I see one I'll be sure to ask them...

Oh wait our many-times-great grandparents lived in the same places as them at the same times, and occupied the same niche. Guess I won't be able to ask them what they thought about it. 

And before you point out that we're not primitives like our many-times-great grandpappy was, you're right. We're now much better at killing than they used to be. 

As long as we can get to one another, we will have a problem. 

I said highly intelligent life forms, cave men surely don't fit the desciption, hell I even question humanity now when we see all the stupidity and primitivism that's still widespread.

As I said, a possibility in theory.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 minute ago, (PS4)reddragonhrcro said:

I said highly intelligent life forms, cave men surely don't fit the desciption, hell I even question humanity now when we see all the stupidity and primitivism that's still widespread.

As I said, a possibility in theory.

Lack of technology ≠ lack of intelligence. 

If we were stripped of your modern technology dropped in a hostile wilderness, and asked to make effective tools from sticks and stones, do you think that as a species we'd be intelligent enough to do it?

I'd say so, and that denotes intelligence. We went from hardscrabble existence to mega structures, to reducing rubble to powder and halting the flow of mighty rivers, harnessing primeval forces and bending them to our will. 

Right now we are communicating because somewhere along the line someone figured out how to pass lightning through tiny rocks, to make light that we can't see, so we could talk to one another. 

The species may still do stupid things, but that doesn't mean a lack of intelligence. 

[SupernovaSymphony]

On 2019-05-24 at 12:23 AM, Kontrollo said:

Because they hate fashion.

Pretty sure this is the actual reason. We are too fabulous for them!

[EvilChaosKnight]

3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Lack of technology ≠ lack of intelligence. 

If we were stripped of your modern technology dropped in a hostile wilderness, and asked to make effective tools from sticks and stones, do you think that as a species we'd be intelligent enough to do it?

I'd say so, and that denotes intelligence. We went from hardscrabble existence to mega structures, to reducing rubble to powder and halting the flow of mighty rivers, harnessing primeval forces and bending them to our will. 

Right now we are communicating because somewhere along the line someone figured out how to pass lightning through tiny rocks, to make light that we can't see, so we could talk to one another. 

The species may still do stupid things, but that doesn't mean a lack of intelligence. 

So you basically say that humans haven't actually developed in a sense of morals or intelligence since the caveman era.
For the matter of fact, the fact alone that the concept of "morals" exists today proves you kinda wrong. Like very wrong. It was okay in caveman era to assault and kill and (sometimes) eat people outside of your tribe, let alone your species. Is it okay today? It was alright to enslave foreign (and sometimes your own) people, ship them overseas in conditions worse than cattle and buy/sell like property. Not the case either nowadays. And until about 100 years ago it was alright to openly discriminate and oppress people based on gender of all things. Let's just say that most of the developed world has moved on from these practices too.

If you are still stuck in a caveman mentality of us vs them, good vs evil, etc and believe that everything civilizations have accomplished is just stuff like "figured out how to pass lightning through tiny rocks", well, it's your choice of course. But there's something more which separates intelligent species from lower animals. Personal accountability, free will and ability for basic empathy/understanding. I would even say, what makes sentient species (well, not Warframe Sentients specifically, of course) stand out is the ability to counter, resist and work around instincts, reflexes and other lower forms of conscious. Would cavemen do that?
Species doesn't evolve into an intelligent form, it's a process which can only be accomplished via post-evolution development.

In fact, why not mention how some children were grown among, say, wolves or other animals and then recovered later on by authorities. By your logic, they would still be as smart and capable as someone who grew up among humans if you try and teach them, but it's certainly not the case. Same applies to cavemen. And it just so happens that lack of social development actually does = lack of intelligence. We didn't just make nuclear power plants. We also figured out that nuking people is bad.

Edited May 26, 2019 by EvilChaosKnight

[(PSN)reddragonhrcro]

5 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Lack of technology ≠ lack of intelligence. 

If we were stripped of your modern technology dropped in a hostile wilderness, and asked to make effective tools from sticks and stones, do you think that as a species we'd be intelligent enough to do it?

I'd say so, and that denotes intelligence. We went from hardscrabble existence to mega structures, to reducing rubble to powder and halting the flow of mighty rivers, harnessing primeval forces and bending them to our will. 

Right now we are communicating because somewhere along the line someone figured out how to pass lightning through tiny rocks, to make light that we can't see, so we could talk to one another. 

The species may still do stupid things, but that doesn't mean a lack of intelligence. 

Pretty much that, which is why social evolution is as important in that context. The development and evolution of societies and social norms.And with that in mind we really can't compare humans back then to right now.

Edited May 26, 2019 by (PS4)reddragonhrcro

[PatternistSlave]

On 2019-05-23 at 7:00 AM, WindBlade said:

So, with the other races its pretty clear why we have to fight them. Grineer want to destroy/enslave everyone else, the Corpus's greed is reckless, dangerous and they're not shy of employing mind control, and the infested just want to eat everyone.

 

But the Sentients? we kind of have a lot in common. We were both created, used and abused by the Orokin, to the point we were only fighting in the first place because the Orokin turned us into weapons in desperation, and we'd still be disposed-of trash otherwise.

 

And the Orokin are gone now. The main reason I can see we would be fight is dead and long gone.. and I cant help maybe we could be chill with the Sentients, or at least agree to leave each other alone.

 

 

Cause space grandpa is racist?

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

2 hours ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

So you basically say that humans haven't actually developed in a sense of morals or intelligence since the caveman era.

Well seeing as how I don't know what moral codes the cavemen had, I can't say that we have. I'd suspect that there are many very prominent archaeologists who would be very interested in what you have to say, if you can prove that you have that information. 

2 hours ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

For the matter of fact, the fact alone that the concept of "morals" exists today proves you kinda wrong. Like very wrong. It was okay in caveman era to assault and kill and (sometimes) eat people outside of your tribe, let alone your species. Is it okay today? It was alright to enslave foreign (and sometimes your own) people, ship them overseas in conditions worse than cattle and buy/sell like property. Not the case either nowadays. And until about 100 years ago it was alright to openly discriminate and oppress people based on gender of all things. Let's just say that most of the developed world has moved on from these practices too.

I'm afraid that you're looking through a very distorted lens, my friend. You see yourself as superior, but you live a life of luxury where technology allows us choices that were not available at the time. 

Take a look at the places where the system has broken down and people are forced to find ways to survive. War zones, will show you killing of other groups which present threats to your resources, and even when they don't, just because they are from a different group. We have famous cases from the modern era where people stranded without food turned to cannibalism to survive after their plane crashed. 

Worse, slavery does exist to this day, and people still fail to meet their daily dietary needs even in some of your developed countries around the world. Some countries have obese populations, and turn food into cheap fuels for their private vehicles, while in other countries people die from the lack of food, potable drinking water or basic health care. 

The developed nations that have moved on from such barbaric practices, consume goods made in countries with gross human rights violations. Take a look at the history of how many of the big brand name products are manufactured. Sweatshops, suicide, child labour, unsafe work conditions... You might wonder if you were standing next to Charles $&*^ens in London for all of the "advancements" we've supposedly had. And from what I hear, oppression based on gender is alive and well, although neither gender can really seem to agree on which of them is oppressed more. 

2 hours ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

If you are still stuck in a caveman mentality of us vs them, good vs evil, etc and believe that everything civilizations have accomplished is just stuff like "figured out how to pass lightning through tiny rocks", well, it's your choice of course. But there's something more which separates intelligent species from lower animals. Personal accountability, free will and ability for basic empathy/understanding. I would even say, what makes sentient species (well, not Warframe Sentients specifically, of course) stand out is the ability to counter, resist and work around instincts, reflexes and other lower forms of conscious. Would cavemen do that?

If I bothered to look I could find examples of animals doing those things. So could you. And without the technology propping us all up,  especially the technology allowing us to produce food using enormous amounts of fuel, I suggest that you not stick around to see if your species as as emphatic and understanding as you seem to think we all are. 

I am not joking about that. I happen to live one country over from a society in apparent freefall. Where branches of the government are at one another's throats. Where crime is out of control, (and just so you don't think that I live in Canada,) where food and power shortages are the norm. You couldn't pay me to visit that country right now. 

As to what cavemen did, you'd need to hop in that time machine to find out. Some seem to have had culture, and modern primitive tribes do seem to have their own moral codes and values. Is your own better than their own? I can't really say. 

2 hours ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

Species doesn't evolve into an intelligent form, it's a process which can only be accomplished via post-evolution development.

Uhhhhhh what? I think that you've confused intelligent and "cultured". 

 

2 hours ago, EvilChaosKnight said:

In fact, why not mention how some children were grown among, say, wolves or other animals and then recovered later on by authorities. By your logic, they would still be as smart and capable as someone who grew up among humans if you try and teach them, but it's certainly not the case. Same applies to cavemen. And it just so happens that lack of social development actually does = lack of intelligence. We didn't just make nuclear power plants. We also figured out that nuking people is bad.

Again that's not quite the same thing. Saying that someone who has been raised in a primitive state isn't intelligent isn't a good fit. We have cases of people who left primitive tribes to live in big cities. They had trouble adapting, not because of a native lack of intelligence but because what was expected of them was alien to their prior experience. Would you have an easy time learning to knap a stone to make knives, or start a fire without matches or flint? Do you think that you would be able to bring down a hungry lion with a sling? Would you be able to sing the song of your ancestors without error, or write cuniform in a language you could not read? 

What would you say about someone like Helen Keller, who lived many of her early years in the dark, isolation of a blind and deaf person who if it wasn't for persistent efforts to find a way to reach her would have been unable to communicate at all? Did your feral children have such loving care in their institutions? 

Saying that your grandparents difficulties using modern technology is because they lack intelligence, when you would have had an equally hard time adapting your behaviour to their world is not a good way of doing things. 

[sinosamba]

Operator has mommy issues....

[Loza03]

17 hours ago, TARINunit9 said:

The entire subversion that is Dark Pit's existence is that he isn't evil or all that selfish, he's just much more gruff to people and much more willing to exert his pride 

My point with Vader is that he is NOT "redemption out of nowhere" like you seem to be billing him as (I think, please clarify if I am wrong). Vader is evil, he has done evil deeds, he has also acted with honor and put limits on his evil, and declared certain evil acts as distasteful to him. In the eyes of the audience, this is an evil character who could believably be redeemed IF the author wants to set that up (which as we know he did want to). It wasn't guaranteed, but it was believable, the audience had reason to believe it. We're not really in disagreement here, I'm just clarifying what my actual thesis was. 

However, the younglings were a deliberate inversion, because it takes place before the "noble nuances" happened.

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with this, mostly because the pseudo-Sentients, the Sentinels, were already introduced. That's a whole 'nother level of meta storytelling that I would rather let play out naturally

I do like your pro-mother way of describing it though

As much as I would like to continue this conversation (and, I actually had a response half-written) but we're going off-topic from the thread, so we'd better stop.

[ChaoticEdge]

15 hours ago, _Behemot said:

you trying to have clem and the rest of the solar system, looking like this?

Sentients trying to become the new overlords, not sure about you but, I aint trying to look like Red Skull, homie.

Sweet Jesus lets burn that thing back to hell!

[Loza03]

11 minutes ago, ChaoticEdge said:

Sweet Jesus lets burn that thing back to hell!

[Legion-Shields]

Wtf has this thread turned into

[Loza03]

1 minute ago, Legion-Shields said:

Wtf has this thread turned into

As a participant of the WTF-ing?

I have no idea.

[Im_a_Turtle]

Simple:

I hates the sentients

I love me Solar System

I loves me fellow carbon based organic life forms.

Simple as.

[(PSN)IroncladBomber]

Because they are Giant Enemy Space Crabs, Who have tried to Kill us in the Past. and Instead of making peace with us, they sent an Assassin Crab to kill us.

[ChaoticEdge]

5 minutes ago, (PS4)IroncladBomber said:

Because they are Giant Enemy Space Crabs, Who have tried to Kill us in the Past. and Instead of making peace with us, they sent an Assassin Crab to kill us.

that remind me of the story of metal gear solid 3