FANDOM


This is the talk page for Reaper/Archive2.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.


Reapers aren't living beings? Edit

What constitutes "living" being? Reapers move, think, reproduce. We don't know if they eat, or if they have their own equivalent of eating. But we do know that they reproduce though their means of reproduction is bizarre. It is even more advanced than the geth--that thinks, moves, is sentient, evolves, but as far as we know, doesn't reproduce. The geth is not an organic race, and we should not judge "living" from a purely organic point of view. The conversation between Shep and Legion in the beginning of its loyalty mission warns us not to. Thus we should not regard the Reaper as a non-living, sentient being, just because it's not 100% organic. There is even a DEAD Reaper--from which we should conclude that there are LIVING Reapers. Isn't that so? Braveangel 01:17, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

I have had this discussion many times and for scifi differs on what constitues a living being. For some it is the ability to think, move, reproduce (in some form). However then others stay that a living being is just organic. You do bring up a valid point but I believe we call it a Derelict Reaper not a dead one. However that is contridicated by other sources becuase the scientisits refer to it as dead. So, I tend to go with the looser definition of living on this on, in calling them a Living Being. However, in terms of the ME Universe, I'd have to say they are non-living becuase they aren't organic and the universe doesn't give living status to AIs as well. That is my opinion on the subject. Overall: Living, but in terms of the game, which is the real context here, non-living. Lancer1289 01:32, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

They're as alive as Skynet from Terminator, or the robots from Transformers. They are sentient synthetic beings. I wouldn't really consider them alive any more than I would consider a toaster to be alive if it is operational and fulfilling its intended function. As is stated above, the so-called 'dead' Reaper is actually derelict. In fact, it isn't even completely non-functional. If it were, the scientists wouldn't have gone all wacko, would they? So no, Reapers aren't really alive, as they aren't organic but rather synthetic. At least, that's my opinion. SpartHawg948 01:34, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

I just want to know what's considered canon here. Some other universes do have 100% organic, sentient ships. But the ones we find in the ME Universe are either organics, synthetics or hybrid sentient beings. Reapers being the only ones that are hybrid--both synths and orgs at the same time. So, only 100% organic beings may be considered "living" in ME Universe?Braveangel 01:52, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
For that we really need devconfirmation. However for the purposes of now, I'd have to say, givin the in-game example I have above, 100% organic seems to be living. Again we really need devconfirmation here. Spart care to shead some light with your opinion. Lancer1289 01:55, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that calling Reapers 'hybrids' is a bit of a stretch. It's possible for a completely synthetic construct to be built or operated with some organic components without being itself an organic-synthetic hybrid. We'd need to know what the organic component was used for in order to ascertain this. As far as we have seen, synthetic artificial intelligences and synthetic beings are not considered alive in Mass Effect. AIs and VIs are not considered alive, and the geth don't seem to be either. SpartHawg948 02:09, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that. So for our purposes only organic species are living and alive. I forgot about the geth and VIs. Lancer1289 02:12, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think Commander Shepard summed it up best when he (or she) told Sovereign- 'You're not even alive. Not really. You're just a machine, and machines can be broken.' [1](about 3:45 in, during one of my favorite parts of ME) SpartHawg948 02:28, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

As I read that, I have to think about bashing my head into a wall becuase I completely forgot about it. That quote alone seems to settle the matter. I hope. Lancer1289 02:32, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

If you mold two different materials together to achieve a new kind of implement, that's called a "hybrid". And, as far as we know, the genetic materials of the abducted humans are injected into the embryonic-Reaper. That qualifies a Reaper as organic-cybernetic hybrid. As for Shep's comments, they are often derogatory towards synthetic beings--as a conversation with Legion shows. A common attitude in the ME Universe. So, while Shep regards Sovereign as "just machine", Sov regards Shep and other organic life-forms as beneath them. "Infinitely greater" are the words used by Harbinger. I won't dispute the rule that synthetic beings do not count as "living being" for this site. But it seems to me that the ME Universe shows that organic races often (if not always) hold contempt towards synthetics, and in some cases (like the geth) the synthetics are willing to wage wars in order to gain their independence from organic beings. Braveangel 03:13, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

I still can se hybrid as a little bit of a stretch, even with what you just mentioned. We only know how the Human Reaper was created, we have absolutly no idea how the rest were so hybrid still is a stretch. If I remember correclty all the Reapers seen in the closing cutscene of ME2, show Sovereign-like Reapers, no others are seen. I could see the Human Reaper as a hybrid because of the liquid but I still can't see the rest because we don't know how they were created. For that reason, I can only see the Human Reaper as a hybrid. As to the contempt, I think that it is a direct result of the geth and nothing more. However we really don't have that much of a history on that point. Holding a grudge, seems to me to more caution that anything else as the geth accident doesn't want to be repeated. Finally as to synthetics waring to get their independence, that is all too common in scifi, and the geth had a very good reason to do so. Lancer1289 03:23, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

And again, just because a machine uses organic matter in some capacity, whether it be during construction or during normal operations, that does not make it a synthetic-organic hybrid. If it did, then most automobiles would be synthetic-organic hybrids. After all, pretty much any automobile other than electric cars uses some sort of organic matter as fuel, whether it be in the form of decomposed animal and plant remains, or fuel derived from plants such as corn and sugar, or animal fat. That doesn't make them 'hybrids'. So no, the fact that liquefied organic matter is injected into Reapers during construction (which isn't a given, as it's only been demonstrated to happen once, without it being stated if other Reapers are built this way) does not make them organic-cybernetic hybrids. After all, isn't gasoline just liquefied organic matter? SpartHawg948 03:37, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Even in the main article, it is cited "This diversity is presumably due to the Reapers reproduction method, in which vast numbers of a single species are harvested, melted down into a raw genetic paste then used to construct a 'larva', that takes on the characteristics of the species it was created from" though the basic design of a Reaper is still a Reaper Cuttlefish. Granted, we know this as EDI's speculation on the data available. And the conversation with Sovereign implies that the Reapers "harvest" organic life. Considering all data available, I admit that "hybrid" is a conclusion based on EDI's take on the data, on circumstantial evidence. ME3 will cast lights on this matter. But, if EDI is right on the Reapers' reproduction method, then they are truly a synth-organic hybrid. Then again, synthetics view organics as lesser beings, and vice versa. If we side with the organics' point of view that synthetics are not in fact living beings, I concede. Braveangel 03:47, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

And as you say, the Reaper reproduction theory is based on one unique example and speculation from a computer. It is not known if all Reapers come to be in this manner. For all we know, they use organics as fuel, and the cycle of extinction is just a cycle of resource extraction and exploitation for them. IF EDI is correct, then it would be acceptable to call them organic-synthetic hybrids, but that is not known at this time. SpartHawg948 04:03, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents, Living Ogranism msut show atleast 1 of the following at any given time:

1. Resporation. 2. Growth. 3. Reproduction. 4. Nutrition (eating etc.) 5. Excretion. 6. Movement. and 7. Sensitiviy (reaction to external stimuli). I see the Reapers show: 2(Reaper Larvae etc.), 3(creating new reapers(in a way repoductoin)), 6(how else do they kill?) and 7. I would classify Reapers as Organic-Synthetic Hybrids. Nothing more, nothing less. Zetomb 05:08, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

But by that logic, cars could also be considered living organisms. After all, it could be argued that they 1) engage in respiration (as cars must take in oxygen to function). 2) They 'grow' in exactly the same sense that the Human-Reaper was growing (i.e. by being constructed and having new components installed). 4) They must take in fuel to function. 5) They excrete as a result of consuming fuel and respiration. 6) They move. Machines can do most of the things you listed there. They can even 'reproduce' in much the same fashion as Reapers have been seen to do. After all, many factories to employ robots to build other machines, including other robots. SpartHawg948 05:19, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

HA! Good point. But here's my 12 cents (HA!) I believe that if and when AI ever becomes so advanced in the real world, we can have the discussion ourselves. Obviously, in the game world, the discussion has already taken place, and AI is not considered to be living. So in the interest of keeping everything true to the ME universe, I'd say that they are not living beings. Now let me pat myself on the back for adding to an already resolved situation. "Good job Effect! You were great!" "No, you were great!" :P --Effectofthemassvariety 07:10, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

HA! Then I up the bet to 22 cents. LOL. But in ME universe, the discussion that concludes that AI and synth are not in fact living beings is carried out exclusively by organics. It's like exclusively men leaders of certain countries decide what women are, and should be doing. In-game, the geth rejects the notion that they are "just machine"--thus the Morning War. Legion even complains that humans abhor slavery yet put shackles on EDI and other AIs. Later we know that there's a splinter geth group that takes this notion one notch further: they aspire to dominate all life forms. We do not know for certain if the Reapers are really living beings at this moment for lack of data. But Sovereign, at least, claims that they are beyond our comprehension. Certainly it considers itself as "living", or at least creator-less. ME3 might shed some lights on this, especially on Reapers' origin, or not. I, for one, accept that for now we can't say that Reapers are "alive" from the organics' perspectives. But then again, an exclusively organics' perspective (in the ME universe) IS prejudiced against synthetics--heavily prejudiced, IMHO. Braveangel 07:42, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but the perspective from which we are entering the game is from a human perspective. (Did I just say that?) It honestly doesn't matter what we think, what matters is what the in-game humans think. Since they think, at least for now, that AI's, and anything resembling them (Reapers) are not, in fact, living beings, then who are we to say that they are wrong? We are merely observers. And while it's true that there is little true data on the Reapers, for now they are considered basically the same as the geth: Non-Living Artificial Beings. --Effectofthemassvariety 07:53, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But Sovereign never states that it or any other Reapers are alive. To infer that it considers itself living on the basis of comments which don't say anything of the sort is pure speculation. So is saying that the Morning War was evidence of the geth rejecting the notion that they are machines. Again, nothing of the sort is stated. The quarians tried to destroy the geth, and the geth fought back. Thus the Morning War (to quote you). You state that organics saying synthetics are not living is like men deciding what women are and should be doing. I don't think that this is a valid comparison, as the difference between a human and a geth (or a Reaper) is much, much bigger than the difference between men and women. In this case, we have beings that are indisputably living making a judgment call on whether or not machines that were built in a factory are alive. Much different than men and women. SpartHawg948 07:55, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, I too hope that ME3 sheds a little (and by that I mean a lot) light on the subject of the Reapers. I just gotta know more about them. They are very interesting, and mysterious. Kinda like Boba Fett, except Huge, and they want to kill all of the galaxy... :) --Effectofthemassvariety 08:00, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Sovereign never does claim that it is alive. It claims that they are beyond our comprehension. While we take our definition of life as superior, Sovereign claims that they are the pinnacle of evolution and existence. It ridicules our whole notions of the universe, saying that we can not even grasp the nature of their existence. The geth certainly regard themselves as 100% software, not a "machine" by our standards. And Shep certainly warns us not to judge others by our own standards, what Legion calls "benign anthromorphism". (It is ironic, for the game is rife with it.) Mostly, in-game we see the organics' POV on this matter. However, though few and far between, we also see the synths' POV. Again, it's one (several) sentient being(s) claiming the right to define other sentient being(s). And that's my comparison was for: sentient men define what sentient women are--even as far as defining women as "properties" in some cases. Braveangel 08:54, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, by the very definition of the word, geth and Reapers are not alive. Life is defined firstly as "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms", and geth and Reapers are inorganic (well, Reapers appear to contain some organic material, but are mostly inorganic, and consider themselves inorganic). So it's not that it's organics 'claiming the right to define other sentient being(s)'. The preexisting definition of the word, conceived long before there were even inklings of synthetic intelligence, rules out the prospect of machines like the geth and the Reapers being alive. In order for them to be, the word needs to be redefined, which could be construed as the synthetic races claiming the right to redefine fundamental concepts of other sentient races cultures and existences, couldn't it? It's not that any organics in ME are altering the definition of alive to exclude synthetics, its that synthetics (or their proponents) are attempting to alter the definition to suit their own ends and desires. SpartHawg948 09:45, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Then I guess I must put two bucks on the table. (::biggrin::) It's now getting really interesting. There are actually two cases of sentient synthetic beings: the geth and the Reapers. They are very different. The geth began as machines. As soon as they gained sentience, their creators were afraid. Sentience means independence, freewill, aspirations, self-determination. Things that hitherto were exclusively organics'. Unwilling to grant these things to their creations, the quarians began to destroy their machines. And the Morning War broke out. The geth won, and thought they had secured their countinued existence. Later, after the splinter groups went out to whoreship (pun intended) Nazarra, the geth began to rethink their strategy. They began to try and learn the organics' POV. They specifically created Legion to be a kind of investigator in the organics' world, to learn about a unique organic individual, Commander Shepard. This concise history of the geth does show that, while they do not try to alter the definition of "life", they do try to acquire the rights of continued existence and self-determination--rights insofar only available to organic sentient species--and are prepared to defend those rights should organics try to take those from them. The Reapers are a different case altogether. Much of their history is unknown. Clearly they dismiss organic life-forms as inferior, only their existence matters. By force, they have assumed the right to exist alone in the universe, completely disregarding what organics think of them. To sum up: the geth want to be treated as equal to the organic life forms, regardless of being considered "alive" or not; the Reapers disregard completely the concept of "life" as understood by organic life-forms. Both are not "alive" by organics' standards, but both have their own definition of their respective existence. Braveangel 10:52, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Quite a thought-provoking discussion! My 2 creds is that composition should not be used to determine whether something is alive. The type of material that constitutes a being is just a means to an end—namely, the processes of living. Whether the body enabling those processes is carbon-based or not ought to make no difference. In fact, the mere knowledge of something's chemical makeup isn't necessarily helpful. A human corpse, for example, is wholly organic yet also non-living. The real question is this: What processes do all living things perform which the Reapers (or the geth) cannot perform? I've been racking my brain to find a plausible answer to this, with no luck. That's why I'm inclined to confer the status of "living beings" on both races. Shenshema 20:35, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

How about reproduce without the use of support equipment/materials such as factories or construction equipment or shipyards? That seems like a good one to me. Humans and asari and quarians and whatnot can just have children, plain and simple. Reapers, on the other hand, appear to need massive support systems which were artificially created by third parties and which require external resources, such as metal and organic beings and other components. The ability to reproduce independent of outside resources and facilities seems like something that should differentiate between living and non-living, at least if we're going on the basis of what do all living things do that the Reapers and geth can't. SpartHawg948 21:06, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that condition too restrictive? Many living things are incapable of reproducing at all, such as infertile mules and hinnies. Shenshema 22:25, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, mules and hinnies are not infertile. They rarely produce offspring (I believe there are about 60 documented cases of them giving birth in the past 500 years or so), but they can reproduce. And those are individual exceptions to a more generalized rule. Even if individual lving things are sterile, they themselves still came about as a result of biological means. My point was that Reapers and geth are incapable of reproduction to sustain their numbers without an industrial support base. This to me would seem to be a good differentiator between living and nonliving. If a species can reproduce without requiring factories to be built to produce new members, they are living. If a complex industrial base is required for the production of new members, they aren't. SpartHawg948 22:36, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
My original statement was "many living things are incapable of reproducing". I don't think the situation changes if we amend it to say "few living things are incapable of reproducing". The presence of even one counterexample renders false any universal claim that "All living things can reproduce biologically". Shenshema 01:59, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Not really. A few genetic anomalies don't counter the fact that living species are capable of reproduction to perpetuate their species independent of industrial facilities. My comment was concerned with living species, not individuals. And last I checked, mules and hinnies aren't species. They are individual genetic hybrids. If you can find me an example of a living species which is incapable of reproducing without the use of factories or shipyards or whatnot, that would render my claim false. SpartHawg948 03:12, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm a little confused here. Individuals are tangible objects. Species are abstract sets of individuals with shared characteristics. When we call an individual organism "living", don't we mean it in a different sense than when we call a species "living"? Consider: any individual man can be analyzed to determine whether he is alive or not. However, we only call Homo sapiens a "living" species in a metaphorical way, i.e. it is "living" if it has a sustainable population, it is "dying" if its population is not sustainable, and it is "extinct" if it has no extant members. I think to keep the issue clear, we should be focusing on whether individual Reapers qualify as living things. After all, biologists don't taxonomize until they determine whether what they're dealing with is even alive and falls under their purview. Shenshema 23:54, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but the point I'm trying to make is that even on an individual level, Reapers aren't born. They are manufactured. In fact, there's something all living creatures can do that Reapers can't- be born parents that were themselves born. Reapers do not give birth to other Reapers. Individual Reapers (from what we've seen) are constructed in shipyards/factories, not born. Other than a very few exceptions engineered by scientists in labs, all living things are born. Reapers are not. They are built. SpartHawg948 00:57, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with SpartHawg on this. It seems like the Reapers are a result of what was originally some form of AI or synthetic that underwent significant change through something that mimics to evolution, pretty much a more powerful copy of the Geth later on. But the idea of something like this is not unprecedented. If anyone has read Swarm by Michael Crighton, he writes about a swarm of nanobots that were encoded with an evolutionary algorithm that led to them mimicing a living thing's ability to evolve. The nanobots were, in pretty much every way, a predator, but a nonliving predator nontheless. Plus, they still needed to be produced by machines combined with bacteria. Another example of a nonliving thing is a virus. Viruses cannot reproduce on their own, just like the Reapers, which is what sells it for me. Viruses are almost idenctical to bacteria except that they cannot reproduce on their own, and that is why they are considered nonliving. Darpod016 01:45, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have a couple of points to make so let's split them up in an orderly fashion:

  • Don't we judge whether something is a living thing by what it does (or is capable of doing) rather than its origins? A human corpse obviously no longer performs the processes we deem necessary to qualify it as living (whatever those processes may be). However, we consider the corpse non-living even though it was birthed at some time in the past through biological means. The way I see it, I may know how an object came to be, but it doesn't help me to evaluate in the here and now whether that object can be called a living thing.
  • If we're talking about individual Reapers, then we should compare what they can or cannot do against other individuals which we already agree to call living. Given this, if your claim is something like "All living individuals can reproduce biologically", then the fact that individuals exist which we can both agree are 1) living and 2) infertile means your claim is untenable. Right now, that's my main hangup about your proposal (which I otherwise think has merit). Does this make sense? Please correct me if I'm messing up the logic here, misinterpreting your claim, etc. Shenshema 09:40, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
But a human corpse was formerly living. And no, to answer your point, a human corpse that was formerly living wasn't 'birthed' as a corpse (with the obvious exception of stillbirths). Regardless, my point still stands that all living creatures are born. And Reapers are not. They are constructed. Again, that's my main point. If it requires external industrial facilities to produce a being (such as a factory or a shipyard), it isn't a living being, it's a manufactured synthetic one. As for the second bit, we can both also agree, I'm sure, that the only thing keeping the infertile creatures from reproducing is a genetic abnormality or other physical deficiency. Using that exception to disprove the rule is like pointing to a person in a persistent vegetative state to disprove the rule that humans are sentient/sapient beings capable of making decisions based on the world around them. SpartHawg948 20:24, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
A human adult that is currently living wasn't born as an adult either! I bring that up because neither the living adult nor the dead corpse came into being exactly as they are right now. Instead, both were born in the past. Having been born in the past is therefore not a credential that helps us discriminate living from non-living; it applies equally to both. Secondly, you also say I'm using an exception to disprove the rule. However, at this point we're not talking about an established rule but rather a proposed rule. When I go and test your proposed rule, I find that there are exceptions to it. As far as I can tell, these exceptions are meaningful counterexamples. To dismiss them would require justification that isn't arbitrary. Thus, for you to dismiss living infertile individuals on the grounds that they are strange, rare, or unusual seems to me like special pleading. Those considerations have no bearing on the matter, since the aliveness and infertility of these individuals are what is salient. Their strangeness or rarity is irrelevant, just as it is with the one black swan that refutes the claim "All swans are white". Shenshema 23:10, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Really? Accusing me of making spurious arguments? Thanks. I was hoping to keep this civil. You are correct that a currently living adult wasn't born as an adult. But it was born as a living being. And that's the point I was making. All living creatures are born. It's something they do that non-living synthetic 'creatures' such as geth and Reapers don't do. And as I keep saying, my main point (which you have yet to address) is that living beings do not require external industrial resources such as factories, assembly plants, shipyards, etc. to propagate. Perhaps, rather than leveling accusations, you could address the actual argument at hand? SpartHawg948 23:55, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

First: I apologize for coming across as accusatory. Please believe me when I say that I had no intention of insulting you. My only goal, then and now, is to critique your position in good faith. I'm sorry that my crappy phrasing got in the way. As for "special pleading", I mentioned it because it's a type of logical fallacy. You may be familiar with many of them: straw men, slippery slopes, circular reasoning, and so on. By bringing it up, I wasn't attacking you personally, but rather just pointing out that your argument may suffer from this particular flaw. Again, my apologies, and I promise to be clearer in the future.
Second: Back to the topic at hand. I'm not going to rehash my previous arguments, at least not yet. What I want to do first is request clarification. You said: "All living creatures are born." Then you said: "It's something they do...." These two statements do not gel for me. The first seems to say that what matters is the trait of having been produced through birth, while the second suggests that what matters is the trait of being able to reproduce through birth. I am confused because these are actually two different characteristics. Which one are you espousing? Shenshema 09:38, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

But I never said that 'what matters is the trait of being able to reproduce through birth', or anything along those lines. You are taking what I said and seem to be misunderstanding it. When I said 'it's something they do', I was referring to the act of being born, not to the act of reproducing through birth (or live birth, or any other form). I was simply referring to the act of being born, as all living creatures are born (even clones like Dolly, and 'test-tube babies' are still born) as opposed to being created in a factory or a shipyard or any other pre-existing industrial facility. That's all. Again, the main crux of my argument is that if beings need a pre-existing industrial framework in order to reproduce, or propogate, or whatever you want to call it, they aren't living. The birth example was just supporting evidence for this argument. SpartHawg948 10:26, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting page. As Samara well put it, when there are three humans in a room there will be 6 different opinions on the subject. There's 20 people here so... Aanyway, speculation is cool and interesting, but sadly it's just that. Speculation. Throwing my part in here: "Although rumoured to have existed fifty thousand years ago, and perhaps much longer than that, no archaeological evidence supports such claims." err.. how about a derelict reaper 37 million SOL years old? just a small slip in the main article eh... Getting on to the cool parts.

  • Reapers seem to have been created a really long time ago by something. What their original purpose was or still is, we don't know. But, being created, they might still run the original programming and protocols (or parts of them) put in by the creators.
  • The ME2 reaper creation method seems to be widely accepted as reaper reproduction, but we honestly don't know if this holds true. It might be just some quick solution for getting out of their desperate situation (sovereign dead, nobody to open the citadel relay).
  • they are not living creatures, not anymore than the geth.
  • they can communicate over tremendous distances somehow, though if this holds true, where's the need for sovereign to open the citadel? why not just send the damn signal from dark space?
  • protheans speculate that reapers lay dormant for thousands of years in dark space, but my opinion is that they keep busy raiding some other galaxies. Once they reached dark space, what's stopping them from setting up mass relays and a citadel in other galaxies as well? this is kinda tricky, because the reapers might as well have not created the relays, but discovered them, killed the original creators (maybe the keepers) and started using them for their own needs. back then, they could have been simple VI routines that somehow got sapience. in any case, the reapers evolution would not have been peaceful.
  • To me, the reapers seem to act like a galactic bully. They act like they do out of simple self preservation. Ask Mordin about evolution, his words are enlightening: LIMITATIONS. you only evolve when you have limitations. hard to carry, invent wheel. getting cold, discover fire. Reapers seem to have reached the pinnacle of evolution, with nothing more for them to evolve to. So they evolve by incorporating whole races, making one reaper out of each race they destroy. Acting a bit like a galactic museum. They dont need the materials the corpses provide, they need the genetic memory, as sovereign said, each reaper is a nation. They're imposing order and drive the galactic evolution on the paths they desire because they're the only paths they know. Once organic races discover the mass effect, nobody is going to waste time looking for alternatives. They're gonna use it and play right into the reapers game. This is because the Reapers don't want anyone to reach higher knowledge than they've already reached. It's evil, it's simple, and it's very good reason for the main antagonists in an epic series.
  • why build a human reaper? maybe they're just a dog looking for a master. a lonely dog. ME3 will be all about beating the Reapers at their own game. Just wish these guys would work faster.
  • Perj 12:02, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Mention of role in ME: Retribution? Edit

Should there be some mention of the Reapers' role in Retribution? I know it hasn't come out yet and the only thing to go by is the summary, but the Reapers are confirmed to play the primary antagonists and story focus. --LBCCCP 22:44, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

We know Reaper tech is involved, but we don't know if an actual Reaper is going to figure in the plot. We should probably wait until we know what's what. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:49, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Reaper miltary Edit

Have anyone noticed that the reapers have no ground units? I think they must have somewhere. Of course they can execute the genocide on all worlds without them with bombardment, but then how Feros, and other worlds were left mostly unharmed? and how did they wiped out those proteans who gone underground? And how could sovereign implant Saren with his hundreds of meters long arms?:-) Maybe they have a few hundred multirole-bots, somewhere in their cargo holds, controlled by them directly. They were not deployed in the siege of the Citadel because the Geth were there. But the reapers have to repair themselves somehow. And manufacture "dragon teeth", Implant slaves like the collectors, and modify the genes as happened with the keepers. of course indoctrinated slaves could do but they became nearly unusable after the process. very few were usable (only two: Saren and Benezia) after indoctrination. I bet they have something like that. If i were an evil robot, i wouldn't like to be repaired by some mentally unstable guys.

No ground units, eh? So, what does that make Husks? Chopped liver? And Collectors? They have at least three ground units we know of. Husks, Collectors, and Indoctrinated people. And you seem to be operating under the assumption that the Reapers are by themselves incapable of... well, of just about anything. This seems like a mighty big leap to me. We know that the Reapers have been doing this for quite some time, and that they've been remarkably successful. I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen unless they are either capable of repairing/manufacturing/manipulating things themselves, or have underlings to do so. Just don't be so quick to assume that the Reapers can't do this stuff themselves. SpartHawg948 16:26, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
The indoctrination is the most insidious part of it. During every previous invasion, the Reapers have taken control of the Citadel and shut down the mass relay network, so they could invade systems one at a time at their own leisure. Now think of a "fleet" of about a dozen Reapers wiping out a system's defense fleet and then just parking on a planet, indoctrinating its entire population in a matter of days. Instant infantry, anyone? PhoenixBlue 16:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
They never actually said the collector base was the only concentration of collectors, or that the ship dogging Shepard had been the only vessel out collecting humans. It seems unlikely to me that a single ship, and space station were all the collectors had at their disposal especially considering that thing couldn't possibly have stood up to a dedicated Alliance (if they hadnt tried to sweep the threat under the rug) attack, since even a copy of the regular Normandy (minus shielding, plating, etc which is by all accounts cutting edge for the alliance 2 years ago) is still able to destroy the collector vessel and survive the oculus attacks (with casualties of course). Also you don't need a Reaper IFF to get through the Omega 4 Relay, I am sure some of those ships didnt make it because of a lack of the IFF but how many more actually made it through only to be destroyed by collectors or oculus? Mictlantecuhtli 17:49, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
As EDI says, "drift of thousands of kilometers is common and may be fatal in the galactic core." A drift of around 1,500 kilometers is like hitting a hole in one from a mile away, judging by Nihlus' and Joker's reactions in the first Mass Effect, but that amount of drift could -- depending on the Collector Base's location -- put you well inside the event horizon of a supermassive black hole, inside a star or brown dwarf, etc. Figure that without a Reaper IFF, the odds of surviving the transit through Omega-4 are effectively zero: out of every 100 ships you sent through the relay, one might survive, and no military commander's going to take that kind of chance. Yes, a ship could survive transit without a Reaper IFF ... and I could win the lottery tomorrow, but that doesn't mean I'm holding my breath.
As for Normandy, let's face it: she only survived because of Joker's mad piloting skills. Any other ship with any other pilot would have been creamed. PhoenixBlue 18:39, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Nah in a world with as much intergalactic travel as Mass Effect pilots like Joker are probably more common than you'd think, just not in cerberus or the alliance. They probably serve as smugglers, pirates, etc and as to the drift problem manual corrections are a possibility since the IFF just activates computerized safety features that an organic pilot may be able to manage himself with experience, intuition, and luck. That amount of debris does not suggest those ships were sucked into black holes but actually made it through mostly intact and then had internal explosions, oculus, or collectors finish them off. The chances would probably be pretty reasonable after a scout ship with the Reaper IFF actually went through (as seen with the cerberus vessels arriving through the Omega 4 Relay if you preserve the station but kill the collectors, since that was way too many ships considering what you had to go through to get a single IFF). Mictlantecuhtli 19:14, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Manual corrections? On a relay jump somewhere around 35,000 light-years? You might as well try to hit the bullseye on a dartboard ... on the moon. PhoenixBlue 19:19, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Then explain what the IFF does, if it does not correct the course of the ship to avoid blackholes. Also if Cerberus had six other IFF's lying around (bad ending, shepard dies and six cerberus vessels pop out of the relay) why did Shepard have to find one? Mictlantecuhtli 19:25, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
An IFF sends an "Identify Friend/Foe" signal -- so the Reaper IFF sent a signal to the mass relay to "trick" the relay into believing Normandy was a Collector or Reaper ship. Once you know what the signal is, though, you don't necessarily need the hardware -- in theory, any communications device, or even a regular IFF already installed aboard a ship, could do the same thing. It's the mass relay that makes the fine-tuning adjustments based on the Reaper IFF signal. PhoenixBlue 19:43, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, the Turian councilor will disbelieve the reapers from the reality!! XD___ Anyway I think too that the IFF had to do something with navigation. And the Omega 4 relay was, (i think) special and not just in color. The reapers wouldn't liked if their "B-plan" would be discovered, so they built a special relay what is more accurate but needs more energy, and an IFF was needed to activate this "accuracy program". When the SR2 Normandy gone through that relay, EDI said that the drive core's charge is at critical levels, so maybe it was powering up for the procedure. Those who got throught without IFF, may have been damaged willfuly to be easily destroyed by the collectors. I would do that way.
Heh. :) I almost wonder if we'll find out in ME3 that the original Citadel Council (whether you saved them or let them die) was subtly indoctrinated. PhoenixBlue 20:37, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
They weren't husks were they, so how could they be indoctrinated? Mictlantecuhtli 23:30, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Do what now? Husks and indoctrinated people are two entirely different things. Remember, both Saren and Benezia were indoctrinated, and they weren't husks. Ditto for the crazed salarians on Virmire. Husks are dead bodies reanimated through the use of synthetics. Indoctrinated people are people who have fallen under the influence of Reaper indoctrination. Two totally different, and mutually exclusive, things. SpartHawg948 23:36, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
I've never played the first game, and the second one doesn't do much to differentiate the two since indoctrinated people turn into husks during every mission in ME2 that mentions indoctrination (with the absence of dragons teeth spikes). Mictlantecuhtli 23:39, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. Yeah, indoctrination and... er, 'husk-ification' are two totally different things. SpartHawg948 23:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, since alot of the missions with indoctrination devices, etc don't have the dragons teeth spikes to explain all the husks I just assumed indoctrination was like a wireless husk creation process. Mictlantecuhtli 23:48, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
No, I guess the Reapers haven't gone wireless with their husk-makers yet. Maybe they need to upgrade to a better service plan? (rimshot) :P SpartHawg948 23:51, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
They could always infect the fish on the presidium, lol. Mictlantecuhtli 00:35, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
I almost feel like rimshot should be a template, usable everywhere in the wiki where bad jokes are made. Fantastic. :P Dammej 00:38, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
But how did the reapers built the Husk makers??? they must have those multirole-bots I mentioned in the begining. Someone had to assemble them... Or may these things were created by slaves? indoctrinated or not, doesn't matter. Un-indoctrinated slaves are more dexterous.
Again though, your question assumes that the Reapers themselves were incapable of making them. This is a completely baseless assumption, as, btw, is the assumption that un-indoctrinated slaves would be more dexterous. Saren and Benezia seemed pretty dexterous to me. So yeah, your question is based off of assumptions that we really have no evidence for. Remember, the Reapers do claim to have built the Mass Relays and the Citadel. I'm pretty sure that if they could make those, making some Dragon's Teeth would be a walk in the park. SpartHawg948 16:57, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Ok you are right. May they have manufacturing parts. Like Omni-tools. but hundreds of times bigger.
Or just dedicated manufacturing centers, like factories. I was actually thinking less like omni-tools and more along the lines of this, although again, this is just conjecture on my part. SpartHawg948 18:56, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
And we are at where I started. These robots like those what I thought about. Not fighting ones, I admit it, but I thought about something like these.
Do what now? I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't in any way implying that the Reapers might utilize separate droids or robots or whatever to do their work for them. The reason I thought of an EVS Construction Droid was because (as I said in the first place), the EVS droids have complex manufacturing equipment inside of them, and they take in raw materials, run them through the internal factory, and then produce a finished product. Again, as I stated originally, this is what I imagine the Reapers do. Not use armies of smaller robots, but take in raw materials and spit out Dragon's Teeth and Mass Relays themselves, like the EVS droids do. So yeah, nothing like where you started. SpartHawg948 20:37, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SpartHawg is probably right about this. I think after millions of years the Reapers are capable of manufacturing their own weapons and tools. Arbington 20:51, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean it stands to reason that Reapers themselves must be capable of at least some manufacturing. I mean, even if they do employ some form of construction robots or something... where did those come from? SpartHawg948 21:11, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Just jumping in here but the theory that the Reapers can't construct somethings on their own, really dosn't sound right if you think about it. They probably either produce some things within the Reapers themselves, like how the Pegasus form BSG could replace its Vipers while on deployment, provided of course they had acccess to the ore necessary to do so. I'd agree that they probably use some form of robots or the indoctrinated they acquire during each culling to produce other things. Being the large ships that they are, they probably can produce somethings, but for the things they can't, they use other means. Lancer1289 21:31, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the long and short of what I was saying with the EVS droid comparison, that they manufacture at least some things internally. To use another Star Wars example, sort of like World Devastators, minus the planet-destroying part. SpartHawg948 21:34, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I misunderstood you, SpartHawg948. But I tought about something like these when i mentioned omni-tools... never mind.
To summarize the previous comments: The reapers have internal factories what can produce things like mass relays, dragon's teeth, If they have enough resources, and they are repaired by indocrinated slaves, And they can wipe out those who hide from bombardment by landing and indocrinating. I hope I understood you good this time. thank you for the intresting ideas. this was a good exchange of views. If I misunderstood you again correct me please.
No, the Reapers might have all those things, not that they actually do. That is what the previous comments were saying.Bastian964 18:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to write "may" and "possibly" in to the summary...

So the protheans Edit

just did nothing?the hundreds of thousandsof protheans did nothing because when they got to the citadel the citadel it turnsout keepers had done it all by themselves? did i miss something, is there a gas leak in here (my location) causing me to not understand simple facts?!?! ralok 13:18, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

well actually sorta there is, my stove has been on for like 12 hours. this isawkward, that might explain why i hadsuch ahard time sleeping last night. hmmmmm, wierd. ralok 13:43, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

human-reaper size disparity "puzzle" Edit

Why does the article describe the size disparity between the human-reaper and other reapers as puzzling? The common sense explanation is that it had yet to grow to full size. The only puzzle in the paragraph are the two points it makes immediatley afterwards regarding by how much the human-reaper would have grown if allowed to reach maturity, and how much of its human shape it would have retained. Can the part about the size disparity be edited to reflect the obvious?

I agree. Since it isn't a puzzle I just cut the section out; it would have been redundant anyway with another section lower down the page that has much more specific info about the Human-Reaper itself. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:37, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Citadel genocide Edit

It could be that I missed something that clarified this, but how do the reapers kill everyone in the citadel? I mean I get how they arrive, and how they have extremely powerful laser/magnetic weaponry. But how the heck do they go about killing off everyone inside their prized space station...without you know damaging it to what would most likely be unrepairable conditions? I mean it can't be something like a secret thermostat control, therefore making a pre-genocide reaper sponsored organic barbeque...Was this ever explained?--McDarkness 02:26, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't ever explained how it is done, but I surmise that the Reapers clean out the Citadel either by turning off the mass effect fields that hold in the air, or just by using their weapons. Remember, the Citadel superstructure is very durable, like the shell of a clam. Everything that civilizations build inside the Citadel would be like the meat of the clam, it's a simple matter to scrape out the meat and leave the shell intact. The Keepers then tidy up the mess afterward, a new civilization comes along, builds new stuff, and the cycle continues. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:32, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much. I mean, how do they clean out entire cities and planets like Feros? It's never explained how they do any of the things they do during the extinction cycles. All that's known is that they do them somehow. SpartHawg948 02:45, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
...
If they would destroy all the buildings on the Citadel, I think it would be suspicious for new races that why would any one build a station what has five flat and empty ward. There are many ways to kill everyone without damaging the buildings, like
  • they turn of life support. (the keepers would die too, I think, but the citadel would construct new ones, like when it replaces the dead ones.)
  • Fly around the station, indoctrinating everyone, and ordering them to kill them selves.
  • Or when the vanguard activates the Citadel relay, everyone on the station fries, when the station loads up with energy.

Reapers created themselves! Edit

Now, I have NO idea whether this has been suggested here or not (couldn't bother to read everything), but those who have played through ME2 will probably understand this.


Now, we clearly saw that they were creating a new Reaper out of humans, thousands and thousands of humans. So, this would obviosly lead to the assumption that all the other Reapers have been created with a similiar methos. So, what I'm suggesting would be that, that at some point, countless of eons ago, there was a hyper-advanced, organic species that created both the Citadel and the Mass Relays. Now, they were at the top and ruled the entire Galaxy. What else would there be to do at this point? I'm guessing that this particular race figured that they want to become immortal and fucking stay that way, which lead them to create the technology required to create a Reaper.

Now, "We are each a nation", would lead to the assumption that since Reapers are apparently created from countless of live subjects, 'Nations' to be correct, this would mean that the very original race - a nation in their own right - decided to turn themselves into a Reaper, pinnacle of evolution, an eternal form of life, and thus was born the original Reaper, from the very first space-faring nation.


And so, in short, if this theory is viable in any way, it 'proves' that Reapers (technically) created themselves. Although, it still doesn't explain the Cycle of Exctinction thingie they have going on, but I liked this theory myself (duh), and I hope you take it into consideration as well.

Please do be mindful of the language, as we have a policy against rude, insulting, or obscene language (emphasis on the latter). The only real issue I see with your theory (which, btw, isn't that uncommon. I've seen the idea that the Reapers created themselves I don't know how many times) is that the Mass Relays and Citadel appear to have been created after the Reapers came into being, as they are key elements in the Reapers 'cycle of extinction' planning. And there is the fact that this theory totally leaves unanswered one of the key elements of the Reapers nature, i.e. the cycle of extinction, which would seem to be a major flaw in the theory, as it could just as easily be argues the Reapers were created by an outside force for the express purpose of carrying out the cycle. Anyways, that's my thoughts on the matter. SpartHawg948 21:32, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the theory could work, although it is more likely that they had origins similar to that of the geth, betraying their masters and what not. Then create the mass relays, if their makers had not done so themselves or created the reapers solely to build the relays. The reapers most likely saw their creators as obselete, liquidized them, and made the first actual reaper, persey. They then most likely scouted out the galaxy, possibly making more reapers from other species, then finally ran out of worthy opponents. They made the citadel or was already their and merely added the relay functionality, retreated to darkspace and let the organics grow.--McDarkness 17:05, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
A couple of things. First, not to seem overly focused on little things, but it's per se, not persey. Also, that is not how it would be used. Per se is Latin for 'of or by itself', and is generally used in the same context as the phrase 'as such'. So, in your case, you could say, 'The Reapers didn't create themselves per se, they were likely created and turned on their creators'. Sorry, but misspelling and misuse of Latin phrases really irks me.
Next, given what we know of how Reapers (apparently) 'reproduce', I find it hard to believe they would have been created by an outside force (i.e. another species, similar to the geth). It seems much more likely they would have created themselves, if they were created at all. If you'll recall, Sovereign states that the Reapers have no creators, and no beginning, they just are. This could very well be hyperbole, but then again, it might not be. Lastly, I fail to see how the Citadel could be anything but purpose built. How would you just go in and add the ability to serve as a mass relay to darkspace as a function on a space station? And if it wasn't purpose built, why all the secrecy? Remember, per Vigil's comments, one of the key points of the plan is that no race inhabiting the Citadel learns too much about it. They can't access its inner workings, and the keepers do all the repairs and maintenance. Brilliant if you are purpose building a station for the goals the Reapers have, idiotic otherwise. I really don't see it as being feasible that the mass relays and Citadel are anything but constructs of the Reapers for the sole purpose of carrying out their genocidal plans, which seems to be their entire raison d'être, and which you didn't really touch on, other than commenting on the lack of 'worthy opponents' which hardly seems like a valid reason (or one that fits the scenario) for what the Reapers do. SpartHawg948 17:35, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Well It makes sense. They are doing this to save others from something. When you battle collector possessed harbringer he says " We are you salvation through destruction". Probably something was coming and to prevent this they turned themselves into " Reapers". Now in order to save the rest they destroy them and turn them into Reapers. OmegaSpruz 18:02, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Well sorry to "irk" you with my terrible use of the Latin lol, but no offence taken. As for the rest of the holes in the explanation, I may be able to clarify. As for the reapers having no beginning, well as far as I know, there is no reaper clause in the big bang theory that has reapers already existing, making sovereign a lier or that he spoke metaphorically, with some sort of all devouring demon referance. Although that makes the story more interesting, not alot of logic imo. So basiclly we come to your alternate explanation of them self creating, which would only be possible if they had at least one reaper to build the rest, otherwise they would need some outside assistance, hence the geth like species. But then again this is pretty much the chicken and the egg argument, so I'll say they could self create, save for the first reaper would have to have been really creative in how it self assembled. And as far as the relays go, either explanation makes sense to me, that their exclusively created for genocide, or that they were created only for reaper travel before the whole cycle concept started (but if we go with the no beginning clause, then this time period is non-existent). Reapers need the relays to travel afterall, unless their holding something back. As for the citadel, I could spit out 100 theories as a reason for its construction without genocide initially in mind. I mean its used for that now, and thats all that really matters in the time ME takes place. I mean the most likely case is that it is only, and was always their little genocide station. Just saying I could come up with alternatives for its initial construction. And the keepers/control center could just been one way then moved and altered to accomidate genocide. Oh and worthy opponents isn't a valid reason? It has to be in the ballpark at least, they do spare the non-worthy ones afterall. But again plenty of possibilities, and this is just my two cents on it.--McDarkness 19:17, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Reapers are an inevitability, they are not as singular as they would like you to beleive. When they state that they "simply are" its complicated. Consider the vast universe, all the galaxies, and the likely trillians ofspecies that compose these galaxies. they are an inevitability, eventually somewhere a race will be melted and turned into a giant omnicidal lovercraftian star robot. Perhaps it happened to several races at random. They beleive themselves to be as natural a part of the universe as the wind blowing on earth, or the gravity sillouhette beetween stars. To them the reapers are something that must happen, and perhaps the reapers are something that happens regardless of what anyboy does. From the beginning of time to the end, when this universe collapses in on itself and the next begins. In their mind they know other beings like themselves will come, and they know others like themself have exsisted. They are stagnation, the atnithesis to life. Life breaks free of the bounds the universe places, it fights the tide, it catches the wind. The reapers want everything to fit, they want order to be imposed on chaos. Even if the reapers are defeated, every piece of scrap melted down into its most base form and turned into disposable cups and party hats. Somewhere someday it will all happen again. But life does exsist, and thus their defeat is also inevitable. Cycles within cycles. I might be getting to deep ralok 21:13, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

The reason I said worthy opponents isn't a valid reason is because the Reapers don't seem concerned with finding worthy opponents. They seem concerned with finding prey that is just advanced enough to suit their needs, but not advanced enough to pose a real threat. What happened to Sovereign was a fluke, plain and simple. They don't want worthy opponents, they want (pretty literally) fish in a barrel. As for the Big Bang disproving Reapers having no beginning, two things. This only works if the Big Bang Theory is actually what happened. Two, even then, there is considerable debate over what (if anything) preceded the Big Bang. Also note that within the Big Bang Theory, you have proponents of the multiverse theory. It's quite simple for Reapers to exist pre-Big Bang. They just existed elsewhere. So again, while the 'Reapers have no creators' but may be hyperbole, it may very well be fact. As for Reapers not being the creators of the relays, as they need them to travel, this would seem to be speculation that doesn't fit with canon. After all, they are shown to be capable of getting from Dark Space to the Milky Way without the Citadel relay (or at least to believe themselves capable of it) and at some point someone had to get around with no relays, as how else did the relays themselves get there. And what makes more sense? A speculated creator-race going around and creating them, or machines whose sense of time is vastly different from our own, that have existed for millenia, creating them? The Reapers are the perfect candidates for the creators of the Relay. Next, please elaborate on some of these hundreds of alternate theories for the Citadel, a space station that is the gateway to the Reapers hideout, which is purposely set up to keep its inhabitants ignorant and unable to function should the true purpose of the station be activated. It doesn't make sense. And finally, you say my theory of 'self-creation' is unworkable because it would require at least one Reaper already present. Not so. What I meant was that the first race to become Reapers (based on what we know of how they apparently reproduce) set up the apparatus to transfer themselves into a Reaper or Reapers, then hit the 'automatic' button (or had some sort of constructs/AIs/VIs/droids/whatever) work the controls. In this way it would be entirely feasible for the Reapers (i.e. the original race) to create themselves. Chicken and the egg argument? I don't think so. SpartHawg948 22:12, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't recall saying that the reapers did not create the relays, I suppose I mentioned the possibility in that first comment, but honestly I'm all for the reapers making the relays, no dispute there. In the second comment, I was refering to the reapers initially building them for their ease of travel, not them finding them, however meaningless as it might be now, since they are now merely temporary luxuries for their victims. Oh, and about the revised version of the self creation theory, seems very familiar to the theory of the original poster, which I believe you disagreed with, and somewhat similiar to the whole synthetic race betraying their creators then liquidized them, so I guess you opened your door to that then? And as a side note are you suggesting that this father race killed themselves to make this initial reaper? That would be strange. And to call out your request for citadel theory, think about it. A massive space station floating out there with a giant shroud of mystery, you may know the purpose now, but who is to say what purpose the reapers originally had for it if not for genocide. To name one, the citadel is most likely the relay with the longest range (to my understanding), so perhaps its initial purpose was to reach another galaxy, only to fall short and be repurposed. Its unlikely I'll give you that, still a possibility though. Although most theories one can come up with will probably fall to far away from canon, the possibilies can be interesting (-> multiverse).--McDarkness 23:22, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I personally beleive that a race did it to themselves as their own gateway to immortality. Preserving the entire species in a lovecraftian horror. If htis is true appearently they liked it enough to force this horror onto others. Im sure we will get answers in mass effect 3 . . . . if not "oh well v0v" preserve the mystery for all i care. ralok 23:29, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do disagree with the theory that the Reapers created themselves. However, I also dislike my points being called 'chicken or the egg arguments', so felt compelled to demonstrate how a Reaper self-creation argument is anything but. As for your Citadel theory, you didn't really provide a theory though. Remember, I didn't ask for a theory that only covers part of the functionality of the Citadel. I asked for a theory other than purpose-built by the Reapers that explains the entirety of the Citadel. After all, if it were just an extremely long-range relay, then why set it up for habitation by organics? And why make it the logical place to house the galactic government? And why (and this is the key here) make it so that, even though they inhabited it for thousands of years, these races were never able to gain the slightest clue into even the most basic aspects of its functionality, or even its maintenance and upkeep? You said you had at least 100 theories other than genocide. Saying 'who is to say what purpose the reapers originally had for it if not for genocide' seems a bit of a cop-out. Lastly, no, I never suggested that the 'father race' killed itself to create the first Reaper. I suggested they integrated themselves into the first Reaper. Again, not necessarily the theory I subscribe to (personally, I like the idea that the Reapers have no creator or beginning, and hope we never find out one way or the other. Mysterious origins make for spookier and more ominous bad guys), but I could not stand having my argument dismissed inaccurately in such simplistic terms as 'chicken and egg' when it was clearly nothing of the sort. SpartHawg948 23:33, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

The theory that they have no beginning (turtles all the way down?) can only bbe eplained via my phylosophical ramblings up there. That kind of stuff is better suited towards a fantasy and not a science fiction. I find it highly unlikely tha the universe whether its steady-state or big bang came packaged with beings that are first and foremost mechanical in nature. NOt to mention mechanical beings whos reproduction is dependent on organic beings. These ramblings are explained via the mindset of the reapers, like i said i think they beleive themselves to be a natural part of the universe, they think they are necessary. And yes i am aware the idea of natural mechanical beings is cool, i appreciated transformers take on the subject. But in the context of mass effect the idea of them not having a creator seems silly, that is unles they were created by multiple people which is one of my theories. Think if in a hundred galaxies by coincidence or fate a hundred species seeking godhood sundered their flesh to create leviathans to prowl the stars forever. And then, through coincidence the meet, a pact is formed to bring those into the fold that are worthy of being gods. Reapers are egotistical robots, and i find it likely that the people who created them are equally egotistical. ralok 23:56, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, egotism at work. "This can only be explained through the principles I discuss". No, my friend, 'tis not the case. Yours is not the only possible explanation for Reapers having no beginning, because it doesn't really touch on the subject. Sovereign doesn't say that 'beings like us' just are. It says "we [i.e. the Reapers, including, it would seem, Sovereign, thanks to the use of 'we']" are. There are many explanations for how they could just be. The concept of all- or very-powerful beings with no end or beginning, who simply are is hardly a new or unique concept, as practitioners of most major religions will agree. Who knows? Maybe the Reapers are some form of demons meant to plague the universe. Just please don't give me that 'The idea you're talking about can only be explained by my ramblings' nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth. SpartHawg948 00:41, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that mass effect is science fiction, and that the reapers are beyond a shadow of a doubt machines. Whether or not they have souls, or if these souls they may have are demons or not is a different arguement alltogether. The fact is that their physical form was still created as a machine. (about to go on a tangent here about transformers sorry if i dont get the continuity right, i am relying on bedtime stories here) In the beginning of time when angels warred unicron fell and was sealed away in a metallic asteroid. He only regained control when other beings built mechanical structures within the asteroid, thus he gained a new body. Unicron was created by god first, but then his body was altered by mortals, the creation of machines was what allowed his mortality. So before we get confirmation that the reapers are more than space machines lets focus on the of their mechanical bodies shall we? And i have to apologize for the way i said that earlier, you are right it isnt just "me" anybody could come up with ideas about how the reapers are timeless, and i have heard some damned good ideas. Whether or not reapers have souls is a great arguement though, i myself have to wonder the theological implications of these beings. There can be only one logical conclusion (i am gearing up a joke here so bear with me) THE MASS EFFECT UNIVERSE IS THE 40K UNIVERSE !!!!!!! the reapers are machines who are powered by demons taken from the warp (did i get that right?) whos bodies are crafted in the furnaces of mars :P. ralok 01:23, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

And you are ignoring the fact that science fiction does not preclude the supernatural or spiritual. Not once has the fact that Mass Effect is science fiction escaped me. What, you thought that for a while I was operating under the assumption that it was real? Of course it's sci-fi. And we know beyond a shadow of a doubt they are machines? You sure? Maybe at the end of the first game, but ME2 certainly added more than a shadow of a doubt. After all, you don't build machines out of sentient, organic beings. So, before we get confirmation that the Reapers are nothing more than space machines, let's focus on the fact that they are organic matter (originally thinking, feeling, sentient/sapient beings, though what they are at the time they go into the Reaper is anyone's guess) that is then placed into a mechanical construct. Not just simple machines at all. SpartHawg948 01:39, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

As of right now i am working under the assumption that mass effect is pure sci fi, until there is confirmation otherwise. And to be entirely clear i love science fantasy, dragonball z, transformers, star wars, 40K, that movie about ftl that gave me nightmares. And i am always of the opinion that there is not enough of it. But i feel it would be out of place, I in my opinion simply feel that what the reapers say can be either their own spiritual beleifs or lack of knowledge. Consider this! there may not be any reapers around anymore that know how the cycle began, thus they have to assume its timeless. And perhaps it is, perhaps like i said somewhere in the universe a reaper will always be made whether its the result of the cycle ortheresult of madness. It was kind of thing about terminator no matter what humanity would create an evil computer program it was inevitable. So the reapers in my opinion are like borg, but with more terminator in the mix. Have i made my opinion clear yet, or do i have to get a graph :P ralok 01:58, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

And again, pure sci-fi can and often does have supernatural or spiritual elements. Unless Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Mass Effect (yes, Mass Effect, with its frequent discussion of religion) aren't 'pure sci fi'. And yes, you have made your position clear. In fact, the Borg were one of the examples I intended to cite. We can no more call Reapers machines beyond a shadow of a doubt than we can call Borg machines, or Lobot from The Empire Strikes back a machine. They're part organic, part machine, not entirely or exclusively either. SpartHawg948 02:51, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

But you are now ignoreing the fact that mass effect has yet to show a superior bein talk about trancdententalism (star trek?) or a mythical energy force that is outright magic in some culture of the galaxy (star wars) and things that confuse me to no end (babylon 5). All mass effect has done has had people with religious views and opinions. And just because people in that universe happen to beleive in things doesnt make them true. WiPlus shephards death provides a counter to some of the religious ideals discussed (its not contrary to my personal religious ideals but that dont matter) as of right now, mass effect is pure sci fi. And lobot is wierd ralok 10:51, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


Race quotes Edit

Anyone else notice that the Reapers are the only race article to have a quote at the top? Can quotes be placed on other race articles too, or is it a Reaper-only thing 'cause the Reapers are that rad? -- Commdor (Talk) 03:01, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that radness certainly plays a role :) You raise a good question. I am by no means an authoritative figure on the subject, but my initial reaction is to say "Why not?" Assuming a representative quote of a species could be found, anyway. -- Dammej (talk) 03:23, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be tricky come to think of it. Might entail a good amount of combing through both games, unless one of us (and by one of us, I don't mean me) has a memory of the elephantine persuasion. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:31, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
This seems like a cool idea. Indeed, I'd support this. I don't know any quotes that'd work off the top of my head though. Arbington 03:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
The only other race I can think of where this would work (and be relatively easy to accomplish) is with the geth, as they all seem to operate very much alike and the only talking mobile platform, Legion, represents the whole race quite well. Or perhaps their "Do we have a soul" would fit better. FifthDisciple 21:28, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Wait a tic... since when is Legion the only talking mobile platform? What about that one that kicked off the whole geth shebang? The one that Legion plays audio of, which asks if it has a soul, as you detail above. You include a quote from another geth platform while stating that Legion is the only one shown so far... hmmm. Now, as for the other point, since when do they all operate very much alike? Remember Mass Effect? And wasn't there a whole loyalty mission in ME2 predicated upon the fact that not all geth operate very much alike? Just throwing those out there... Personally, I'm ambivalent about the idea of quotes for all the races. It seems pretty subjective. Some races would likely have quotes that are positive and beaming, while others (such as the batarians) would likely not get such nice treatment. And what about all the races that have no quotes? Are the raloi, for example, up the proverbial creek when it comes to quotes? SpartHawg948 22:19, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Appearance Edit

The only time I can remember ever seeing a Prothean is in the Beacon Visions and the statues on Ilos. From what I've seen the Protheans have tentacle or maybe even squid like heads. This leads me to believe that it is entirely possible for the Reapers to resemble the last species that they wiped out because the "current" reapers that we are seeing almost resemble the heads of the Protheans.FluffyMagic 06:18, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

So... what? They change appearance every time that they wipe out a species? I don't buy it. Remember, the Human-Reaper, even though it was incomplete, already resembled a human from the waist up. Why then would fully developed Reapers only take on the appearance of the heads of their victims? If that were the case, shouldn't the H-R have been a skull, and nothing more? SpartHawg948 06:22, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
And remember, EDI suggests the Reapers tried and failed at building a Prothean Reaper. i acknowledge EDI was merely postulating at the time, but she has a great track record when it comes to such things. Wasn't it suppose to be that, because they could make a Prothean Reaper, the Reapers decided to use the Prothean slaves they had left over as intermediaries to help in making the next Reaper? After all, they gathered all these slaves but now had no use for them.Ironreaper 08:45, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
This may seem crazy, but I, personally, don't think BioWare intended for the Human-Reaper to ever look like a functional starship or the other Reapers. By that, I mean they made the H-R a larva because it works better dramatically. That leaves its future (full-grown [moth?]) appearance completely up to the individual player's imagination without BioWare having to create a functional design for its future form, as a gargantuan spaceman of destruction just doesn't seem very formidable (see Spaceballs for poor reference). Looking at the Reaper fleet, one can see that every Reaper has the unified design element of a cuttlefish-esque appearance, with a possible acception of the Scarab-like Reaper (I like to call it "Plague"), but even its body is sleek. This is only my logic, as not all of the Reapers are visible and that screen doesn't show the entire vastness of the fleet, but I don't find it believeable that the Reapers hadn't wiped out a bipedal (or even quadripedal) race in the span of their existence. So, to reiterate my point, BioWare purposefully wrote themselves a story and a lore that worked for drama's sake and not functionality. 98.148.7.163 14:33, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that last post was mine. I forgot to sign in xD SlayerEGO1342 14:35, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Well first of all, I don't think all the reapers look exactly the same, and if they were to all remodel themselves(which would be potentially the least useful thing they could do) they probably would look way more similar than they do now. And as the others pointed out, they apparently were not able to make a prothean reaper(bet they were pissed) which means no reaper is a prothean based...construct/starship/whatever the heck classification. However, I do understand the comparison, and although possible, it does seem unlikely. So, if what you were trying to say is that they remodel, its unlikely, or if you meant that alot of the reapers look like protheans due to how their population was, if we ignore EDI, then entirely possible.--McDarkness 19:20, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
The near uniform design of the Reapers has been a puzzle to myself too with the H-R larvae. The larvae of all the species used could resemble them (structure) nad then once it is complete, thenh it could be remodeled, interior adjusted to that of the other reapers and the exterior also changed to some cuttlefish-esque shape. The reason for the exterior change could be that the actual Hull of the ship isn't as strong as it could be and the general design is structurally better against the set path of tech. that organic races follow. Seeing as the H-R was easily defeated, this seems like a reasonable explaination and how useable would a bipedal or quadpedal ship be anyway? The design of the Reapers is certaintly changed after the first stage of growing/building it for combat purposes among others. Zetomb 02:45, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Zetomb, what I'm speculating is that there is no intention of the H-R being anything more than a larva from a design standpoint. It made for a good, dramatic fight, but that was where its design ended. BioWare didn't make an explanation for what it would look like fully grown simply because they never canonically intended for it to be so. It's so puzzling and it doesn't make much sense because it's not meant to make sense. SlayerEGO1342 18:25, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

New Reaper quotes Edit

Probably a spoiler for alot of you. These are taken from retribution, when Kahlee is talking to Grayson (possessed). 1. "We seek salvation, ours and yours." 2. Prompt: wondering about Grayson. "He has been repurposed. He has evolved into something greater than a random assortment of cells and organic refuse." 3. Prompt: why not leave us (humans) alone. "We are the keepers of the cycle. The creators and destroyers. Your existence is a flicker, a spark. We can extinguish it - or we can make you immortal." 4. "Organic life lives, dies, and is forgotten. You cannot fully comprehend anything beyond this. Yet there is a realm of existence beyond your understanding." 5. "We are the pinnacle of evolution. Yet we see potential in your species. You can be elevated. The weakness of organic flesh can be cast aside. You can transcend yourselves." 6. "Your understanding is limited by genetics. You cannot see beyond the brief instant of your own existence. Yet our knowledge is infinite, as are we." 7. "The laws of this universe are inviolate. Immutable. Your resistance will only lead to your extinction. What are. - what we do - is inevitable." --McDarkness 22:31, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

So, now that I've finally finished the book and can speak with some semblance of knowledge on this, I have to say that, if the intent of posting the above quotes was to get them in the article (to replace or supplement the current quotes) I have one major reservation. The full context of the quotes was not given in the above. Yes, it was taken from conversation between Kahlee and the Reapers possessing Grayson. However, all the while, the Reapers were in the process of indoctrinating Miss Sanders. As such, we cannot be sure whether the quotes are intended to be taken at fact value, or if they were pretty words meant to entice the listener, allowing the process of indoctrination to occur. And, given that it did work on her, with her only saving grace being a series of rapid biotic and conventional attacks that took the Reapers down, I'm leaning towards the latter. SpartHawg948 20:10, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.