Forums / Community / Halo Universe

Relatinship between john/cortana

OP Hells Devourer

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 14
  4. 15
  5. ...
  6. 16
ML526 wrote:
I have a feeling John will have a hard time facing Cortana, but he will do what he knows is right(Tanaka quoting). And I also feel that Cortana might try to convince John again but it might end (hopefully) in a boss fight. By the way, is anyone glad Roland didn't betray Infinity? I always liked Roland.
Sort of depends on what John "feels to be right" doesn't it? Considering how unbelievably stubborn he is, it might even be that he might never give up on the idea in brining Cortana back to the fold, or that someone might be controlling her. What would be interesting would be to see how his stubbornness and denial in regards to Cortana might end up hindering his and the UNSCs efforts to stop her.
Hi, I disagree. There isn't any evidence after Chief is freed from the Cryptum to suggest that he's in denial about Cortana's actions at the end of the game. When Locke tells him Cortana's gone (implying also that any hopes to reconcile with her are gone), the Chief doesn't stubbornly ignore Locke and order Blue Team to continue to search for Cortana, which, yes, would've certainly shown he's in denial. But that's not what happens. He goes with Locke, back to Palmer, back to Halsey--symbolically back to the UNSC. It rounds off his character development (what little of it) in the game: 1) beginning: he believed he could convince Cortana to redeem herself and give up her pursuit of the Mantle and bring her back home, 2) middle: they talk, and he realizes she has no remorse for the millions she killed and no intention of giving up her crusade, 3) end: he's freed from the Cryptum and realizes what she was willing to do to him and his team for the Mantle. These realizations are steps of growth, and his next logical decision is to stop Cortana, and thus to return back to the UNSC, because their goals are now the same.

In other words, if Halo 6 focuses on the Chief again trying to redeem and bring Cortana back instead of effectively stopping her now, then we've regressed all the way back to the beginning of Halo 5, and we might very well have the exact same game and rehash the exact same issues all over again.
Quote:
Same with Cortana. At what point, if at all, is she willing to sacrifice John for the Mantle? Halo 5 shows her going out of her way to make sure she doesn't have to make that choice, but now that John is free she might have to. Be interesting to see which of them breaks first and decides it's necessary to do in the other, or if neither of them do, which might cause others to end up taking matters into their own hands.
If John decides to kill Cortana but she never can bring herself to come to the same decision about him, than who is the true monster in that situation? Same vise versa. Quite the moral conundrum 343i has put us in.
But in this circumstance, the definition of "monster" isn't simply "who would kill who," is it? There is, of course, context. If Cortana is killing millions of people and threatening the entire galaxy into subjugation under pain of death, is she still not a monster just because she'd prefer not to kill the Chief?

You asked at what point in Halo 5 she was willing to sacrifice the Chief to take up the Mantle, and I think your argument is that she didn’t choose to sacrifice him and therefore had the moral high ground. But keep in mind that "sacrifice" doesn't always mean death, and in this case, the sacrifice was forcing him into a Cryptum for 10,000 years, effectively stripping him of his free will, his consciousness, his agency as a human being. If you care about someone so much and still do this to them, you are sacrificing them for your own gains. Just because Cortana doesn't want to kill John doesn't mean she wouldn’t still hurt him to gain the Mantle. Just because she wouldn't kill him doesn’t mean she is not a monster.

And if John does kill Cortana to save every species from galactic dictatorship, is he the monster simply because he is willing to kill her? Now, I don't think anyone would argue that it wouldn't be difficult for him to kill her--it might be the hardest thing he's ever had to do--but he would still do it, not to save just humanity this time, but to save all the species in the entire galaxy. And I think a lot of people would soundly argue that this does not make him a monster.

My point is, 343i didn't put me personally in a moral conundrum at all with this game. They gave Cortana a horrific crusade, they gave John the opportunity to convince her to stop, and they showed me that Cortana wouldn't listen even to him, the person she cares about the most. And this, along with the ending of the game and John returning to the UNSC, indicates that the direction for Halo 6 won't be focused on his denial again, won't be focused on the possibility that Cortana might be redeemable again. It indicates it will be a cut-and-dry conflict between the concepts of forceful dictatorship vs. the right to free will.
Have you forgotten that the UNSC is a totalitarian military oligarchy? An authoritarian regime that has shown itself perfectly willing and capable to massacre its own civilians and imprison innocent people all in the name of the "greater good". Cortana's own moral system is not an iota different than the moral system the UNSC, and especially ONI, operates under. The war against Cortana will cost millions of lives. How can that loss of life be possibly justified when all you would really be doing is trading one authoritarian regime for another? You talk about John having character growth, yet him fully returning to the UNSC is the exact opposite of that. True character growth would mean for him to realize that if Cortana is wrong in what she is doing, than the UNSC must be wrong as well. A paradigm shift has to occur, because the UNSC and ONI are most certainly not on the side of free will. You're a bit naive if you think that, and if John is willing to sacrifice millions just to keep a totalitarian regime from losing its power, then honestly he might as well just let Cortana win and not bother wasting so many lives.
You apparently have been reading the insurrection's literature if you think that the UNSC is anything other than just a military. The UNSC hasn't killed civilians for the greater good, that's Cortana and the rebels that have done that,not the UNSC. Not even ONI does that stuff.
firerwolf wrote:
ML526 wrote:
I have a feeling John will have a hard time facing Cortana, but he will do what he knows is right(Tanaka quoting). And I also feel that Cortana might try to convince John again but it might end (hopefully) in a boss fight. By the way, is anyone glad Roland didn't betray Infinity? I always liked Roland.
Sort of depends on what John "feels to be right" doesn't it? Considering how unbelievably stubborn he is, it might even be that he might never give up on the idea in brining Cortana back to the fold, or that someone might be controlling her. What would be interesting would be to see how his stubbornness and denial in regards to Cortana might end up hindering his and the UNSCs efforts to stop her.
Hi, I disagree. There isn't any evidence after Chief is freed from the Cryptum to suggest that he's in denial about Cortana's actions at the end of the game. When Locke tells him Cortana's gone (implying also that any hopes to reconcile with her are gone), the Chief doesn't stubbornly ignore Locke and order Blue Team to continue to search for Cortana, which, yes, would've certainly shown he's in denial. But that's not what happens. He goes with Locke, back to Palmer, back to Halsey--symbolically back to the UNSC. It rounds off his character development (what little of it) in the game: 1) beginning: he believed he could convince Cortana to redeem herself and give up her pursuit of the Mantle and bring her back home, 2) middle: they talk, and he realizes she has no remorse for the millions she killed and no intention of giving up her crusade, 3) end: he's freed from the Cryptum and realizes what she was willing to do to him and his team for the Mantle. These realizations are steps of growth, and his next logical decision is to stop Cortana, and thus to return back to the UNSC, because their goals are now the same.

In other words, if Halo 6 focuses on the Chief again trying to redeem and bring Cortana back instead of effectively stopping her now, then we've regressed all the way back to the beginning of Halo 5, and we might very well have the exact same game and rehash the exact same issues all over again.
Quote:
Same with Cortana. At what point, if at all, is she willing to sacrifice John for the Mantle? Halo 5 shows her going out of her way to make sure she doesn't have to make that choice, but now that John is free she might have to. Be interesting to see which of them breaks first and decides it's necessary to do in the other, or if neither of them do, which might cause others to end up taking matters into their own hands.
If John decides to kill Cortana but she never can bring herself to come to the same decision about him, than who is the true monster in that situation? Same vise versa. Quite the moral conundrum 343i has put us in.
But in this circumstance, the definition of "monster" isn't simply "who would kill who," is it? There is, of course, context. If Cortana is killing millions of people and threatening the entire galaxy into subjugation under pain of death, is she still not a monster just because she'd prefer not to kill the Chief?

You asked at what point in Halo 5 she was willing to sacrifice the Chief to take up the Mantle, and I think your argument is that she didn’t choose to sacrifice him and therefore had the moral high ground. But keep in mind that "sacrifice" doesn't always mean death, and in this case, the sacrifice was forcing him into a Cryptum for 10,000 years, effectively stripping him of his free will, his consciousness, his agency as a human being. If you care about someone so much and still do this to them, you are sacrificing them for your own gains. Just because Cortana doesn't want to kill John doesn't mean she wouldn’t still hurt him to gain the Mantle. Just because she wouldn't kill him doesn’t mean she is not a monster.

And if John does kill Cortana to save every species from galactic dictatorship, is he the monster simply because he is willing to kill her? Now, I don't think anyone would argue that it wouldn't be difficult for him to kill her--it might be the hardest thing he's ever had to do--but he would still do it, not to save just humanity this time, but to save all the species in the entire galaxy. And I think a lot of people would soundly argue that this does not make him a monster.

My point is, 343i didn't put me personally in a moral conundrum at all with this game. They gave Cortana a horrific crusade, they gave John the opportunity to convince her to stop, and they showed me that Cortana wouldn't listen even to him, the person she cares about the most. And this, along with the ending of the game and John returning to the UNSC, indicates that the direction for Halo 6 won't be focused on his denial again, won't be focused on the possibility that Cortana might be redeemable again. It indicates it will be a cut-and-dry conflict between the concepts of forceful dictatorship vs. the right to free will.
Have you forgotten that the UNSC is a totalitarian military oligarchy? An authoritarian regime that has shown itself perfectly willing and capable to massacre its own civilians and imprison innocent people all in the name of the "greater good". Cortana's own moral system is not an iota different than the moral system the UNSC, and especially ONI, operates under. The war against Cortana will cost millions of lives. How can that loss of life be possibly justified when all you would really be doing is trading one authoritarian regime for another? You talk about John having character growth, yet him fully returning to the UNSC is the exact opposite of that. True character growth would mean for him to realize that if Cortana is wrong in what she is doing, than the UNSC must be wrong as well. A paradigm shift has to occur, because the UNSC and ONI are most certainly not on the side of free will. You're a bit naive if you think that, and if John is willing to sacrifice millions just to keep a totalitarian regime from losing its power, then honestly he might as well just let Cortana win and not bother wasting so many lives.
You apparently have been reading the insurrection's literature if you think that the UNSC is anything other than just a military. The UNSC hasn't killed civilians for the greater good, that's Cortana and the rebels that have done that,not the UNSC. Not even ONI does that stuff.
In HTT, when oni went in to retrieve fero, they massecured alot of people that, though rebels, were also civilians who wanted a bette lifestyle.
firerwolf wrote:
ML526 wrote:
I have a feeling John will have a hard time facing Cortana, but he will do what he knows is right(Tanaka quoting). And I also feel that Cortana might try to convince John again but it might end (hopefully) in a boss fight. By the way, is anyone glad Roland didn't betray Infinity? I always liked Roland.
Sort of depends on what John "feels to be right" doesn't it? Considering how unbelievably stubborn he is, it might even be that he might never give up on the idea in brining Cortana back to the fold, or that someone might be controlling her. What would be interesting would be to see how his stubbornness and denial in regards to Cortana might end up hindering his and the UNSCs efforts to stop her.
Hi, I disagree. There isn't any evidence after Chief is freed from the Cryptum to suggest that he's in denial about Cortana's actions at the end of the game. When Locke tells him Cortana's gone (implying also that any hopes to reconcile with her are gone), the Chief doesn't stubbornly ignore Locke and order Blue Team to continue to search for Cortana, which, yes, would've certainly shown he's in denial. But that's not what happens. He goes with Locke, back to Palmer, back to Halsey--symbolically back to the UNSC. It rounds off his character development (what little of it) in the game: 1) beginning: he believed he could convince Cortana to redeem herself and give up her pursuit of the Mantle and bring her back home, 2) middle: they talk, and he realizes she has no remorse for the millions she killed and no intention of giving up her crusade, 3) end: he's freed from the Cryptum and realizes what she was willing to do to him and his team for the Mantle. These realizations are steps of growth, and his next logical decision is to stop Cortana, and thus to return back to the UNSC, because their goals are now the same.

In other words, if Halo 6 focuses on the Chief again trying to redeem and bring Cortana back instead of effectively stopping her now, then we've regressed all the way back to the beginning of Halo 5, and we might very well have the exact same game and rehash the exact same issues all over again.
Quote:
Same with Cortana. At what point, if at all, is she willing to sacrifice John for the Mantle? Halo 5 shows her going out of her way to make sure she doesn't have to make that choice, but now that John is free she might have to. Be interesting to see which of them breaks first and decides it's necessary to do in the other, or if neither of them do, which might cause others to end up taking matters into their own hands.
If John decides to kill Cortana but she never can bring herself to come to the same decision about him, than who is the true monster in that situation? Same vise versa. Quite the moral conundrum 343i has put us in.
But in this circumstance, the definition of "monster" isn't simply "who would kill who," is it? There is, of course, context. If Cortana is killing millions of people and threatening the entire galaxy into subjugation under pain of death, is she still not a monster just because she'd prefer not to kill the Chief?

You asked at what point in Halo 5 she was willing to sacrifice the Chief to take up the Mantle, and I think your argument is that she didn’t choose to sacrifice him and therefore had the moral high ground. But keep in mind that "sacrifice" doesn't always mean death, and in this case, the sacrifice was forcing him into a Cryptum for 10,000 years, effectively stripping him of his free will, his consciousness, his agency as a human being. If you care about someone so much and still do this to them, you are sacrificing them for your own gains. Just because Cortana doesn't want to kill John doesn't mean she wouldn’t still hurt him to gain the Mantle. Just because she wouldn't kill him doesn’t mean she is not a monster.

And if John does kill Cortana to save every species from galactic dictatorship, is he the monster simply because he is willing to kill her? Now, I don't think anyone would argue that it wouldn't be difficult for him to kill her--it might be the hardest thing he's ever had to do--but he would still do it, not to save just humanity this time, but to save all the species in the entire galaxy. And I think a lot of people would soundly argue that this does not make him a monster.

My point is, 343i didn't put me personally in a moral conundrum at all with this game. They gave Cortana a horrific crusade, they gave John the opportunity to convince her to stop, and they showed me that Cortana wouldn't listen even to him, the person she cares about the most. And this, along with the ending of the game and John returning to the UNSC, indicates that the direction for Halo 6 won't be focused on his denial again, won't be focused on the possibility that Cortana might be redeemable again. It indicates it will be a cut-and-dry conflict between the concepts of forceful dictatorship vs. the right to free will.
Have you forgotten that the UNSC is a totalitarian military oligarchy? An authoritarian regime that has shown itself perfectly willing and capable to massacre its own civilians and imprison innocent people all in the name of the "greater good". Cortana's own moral system is not an iota different than the moral system the UNSC, and especially ONI, operates under. The war against Cortana will cost millions of lives. How can that loss of life be possibly justified when all you would really be doing is trading one authoritarian regime for another? You talk about John having character growth, yet him fully returning to the UNSC is the exact opposite of that. True character growth would mean for him to realize that if Cortana is wrong in what she is doing, than the UNSC must be wrong as well. A paradigm shift has to occur, because the UNSC and ONI are most certainly not on the side of free will. You're a bit naive if you think that, and if John is willing to sacrifice millions just to keep a totalitarian regime from losing its power, then honestly he might as well just let Cortana win and not bother wasting so many lives.
You apparently have been reading the insurrection's literature if you think that the UNSC is anything other than just a military. The UNSC hasn't killed civilians for the greater good, that's Cortana and the rebels that have done that,not the UNSC. Not even ONI does that stuff.
In HTT, when oni went in to retrieve fero, they massecured alot of people that, though rebels, were also civilians who wanted a bette lifestyle.
Rebels are not innocent people. They don't want a better life style they want to feel like they're being stepped on by the big guy when they aren't. Rebels are the people that set off bombs in public places and kill the actually innocent, the people that want to just try to make a life. Rebels are the people who slaughtered the Rookie when he was unarmed.
firerwolf wrote:
Have you forgotten that the UNSC is a totalitarian military oligarchy? An authoritarian regime that has shown itself perfectly willing and capable to massacre its own civilians and imprison innocent people all in the name of the "greater good". Cortana's own moral system is not an iota different than the moral system the UNSC, and especially ONI, operates under. The war against Cortana will cost millions of lives. How can that loss of life be possibly justified when all you would really be doing is trading one authoritarian regime for another? You talk about John having character growth, yet him fully returning to the UNSC is the exact opposite of that. True character growth would mean for him to realize that if Cortana is wrong in what she is doing, than the UNSC must be wrong as well. A paradigm shift has to occur, because the UNSC and ONI are most certainly not on the side of free will. You're a bit naive if you think that, and if John is willing to sacrifice millions just to keep a totalitarian regime from losing its power, then honestly he might as well just let Cortana win and not bother wasting so many lives.
You apparently have been reading the insurrection's literature if you think that the UNSC is anything other than just a military. The UNSC hasn't killed civilians for the greater good, that's Cortana and the rebels that have done that,not the UNSC. Not even ONI does that stuff.
In HTT, when oni went in to retrieve fero, they massecured alot of people that, though rebels, were also civilians who wanted a bette lifestyle.
The UNSC and ONI are still just the military arms of the UEG. And just like any government the UEG is far from perfect. The Insurrection has it's own flaws as well. No party within humanity's internal conflicts is 100% guiltless. However even then there are many colony worlds that function peacefully with or are essentially independent of those authorities. And as of 'Halo 5' the UNSC is for the most part staying out of the political/military affairs of other species - as is noted when Osiris heads to Sanghelios. It is hardly even comparable to the actual galaxy-wide totalitarian regime designed by Cortana. What you're proposing is akin to saying the countries of Europe should have just let Hitler take over everything during WWII because "why not, all governments are oppressive or corrupt in some way anyway".

A question raised by 'Halo 5' is when does the concept of "the greater good" go too far? And Cortana has absolutely done that - a line has been crossed in regards to what she plans to do. And in terms of the Chief himself, he can still grapple with those concepts and realize the system he serves is imperfect, and grow as a character without abandoning the UNSC (and all other sentient species in the galaxy). Showing him being in denial and clinging to unhealthy behaviors isn't growth, in fact it's the exact opposite. Growth comes from accepting change, and moving forward.
firerwolf wrote:
firerwolf wrote:
ML526 wrote:
I have a feeling John will have a hard time facing Cortana, but he will do what he knows is right(Tanaka quoting). And I also feel that Cortana might try to convince John again but it might end (hopefully) in a boss fight. By the way, is anyone glad Roland didn't betray Infinity? I always liked Roland.
Sort of depends on what John "feels to be right" doesn't it? Considering how unbelievably stubborn he is, it might even be that he might never give up on the idea in brining Cortana back to the fold, or that someone might be controlling her. What would be interesting would be to see how his stubbornness and denial in regards to Cortana might end up hindering his and the UNSCs efforts to stop her.
Hi, I disagree. There isn't any evidence after Chief is freed from the Cryptum to suggest that he's in denial about Cortana's actions at the end of the game. When Locke tells him Cortana's gone (implying also that any hopes to reconcile with her are gone), the Chief doesn't stubbornly ignore Locke and order Blue Team to continue to search for Cortana, which, yes, would've certainly shown he's in denial. But that's not what happens. He goes with Locke, back to Palmer, back to Halsey--symbolically back to the UNSC. It rounds off his character development (what little of it) in the game: 1) beginning: he believed he could convince Cortana to redeem herself and give up her pursuit of the Mantle and bring her back home, 2) middle: they talk, and he realizes she has no remorse for the millions she killed and no intention of giving up her crusade, 3) end: he's freed from the Cryptum and realizes what she was willing to do to him and his team for the Mantle. These realizations are steps of growth, and his next logical decision is to stop Cortana, and thus to return back to the UNSC, because their goals are now the same.

In other words, if Halo 6 focuses on the Chief again trying to redeem and bring Cortana back instead of effectively stopping her now, then we've regressed all the way back to the beginning of Halo 5, and we might very well have the exact same game and rehash the exact same issues all over again.
Quote:
Same with Cortana. At what point, if at all, is she willing to sacrifice John for the Mantle? Halo 5 shows her going out of her way to make sure she doesn't have to make that choice, but now that John is free she might have to. Be interesting to see which of them breaks first and decides it's necessary to do in the other, or if neither of them do, which might cause others to end up taking matters into their own hands.
If John decides to kill Cortana but she never can bring herself to come to the same decision about him, than who is the true monster in that situation? Same vise versa. Quite the moral conundrum 343i has put us in.
But in this circumstance, the definition of "monster" isn't simply "who would kill who," is it? There is, of course, context. If Cortana is killing millions of people and threatening the entire galaxy into subjugation under pain of death, is she still not a monster just because she'd prefer not to kill the Chief?

You asked at what point in Halo 5 she was willing to sacrifice the Chief to take up the Mantle, and I think your argument is that she didn’t choose to sacrifice him and therefore had the moral high ground. But keep in mind that "sacrifice" doesn't always mean death, and in this case, the sacrifice was forcing him into a Cryptum for 10,000 years, effectively stripping him of his free will, his consciousness, his agency as a human being. If you care about someone so much and still do this to them, you are sacrificing them for your own gains. Just because Cortana doesn't want to kill John doesn't mean she wouldn’t still hurt him to gain the Mantle. Just because she wouldn't kill him doesn’t mean she is not a monster.

And if John does kill Cortana to save every species from galactic dictatorship, is he the monster simply because he is willing to kill her? Now, I don't think anyone would argue that it wouldn't be difficult for him to kill her--it might be the hardest thing he's ever had to do--but he would still do it, not to save just humanity this time, but to save all the species in the entire galaxy. And I think a lot of people would soundly argue that this does not make him a monster.

My point is, 343i didn't put me personally in a moral conundrum at all with this game. They gave Cortana a horrific crusade, they gave John the opportunity to convince her to stop, and they showed me that Cortana wouldn't listen even to him, the person she cares about the most. And this, along with the ending of the game and John returning to the UNSC, indicates that the direction for Halo 6 won't be focused on his denial again, won't be focused on the possibility that Cortana might be redeemable again. It indicates it will be a cut-and-dry conflict between the concepts of forceful dictatorship vs. the right to free will.
Have you forgotten that the UNSC is a totalitarian military oligarchy? An authoritarian regime that has shown itself perfectly willing and capable to massacre its own civilians and imprison innocent people all in the name of the "greater good". Cortana's own moral system is not an iota different than the moral system the UNSC, and especially ONI, operates under. The war against Cortana will cost millions of lives. How can that loss of life be possibly justified when all you would really be doing is trading one authoritarian regime for another? You talk about John having character growth, yet him fully returning to the UNSC is the exact opposite of that. True character growth would mean for him to realize that if Cortana is wrong in what she is doing, than the UNSC must be wrong as well. A paradigm shift has to occur, because the UNSC and ONI are most certainly not on the side of free will. You're a bit naive if you think that, and if John is willing to sacrifice millions just to keep a totalitarian regime from losing its power, then honestly he might as well just let Cortana win and not bother wasting so many lives.
Rebels are not innocent people. They don't want a better life style they want to feel like they're being stepped on by the big guy when they aren't. Rebels are the people that set off bombs in public places and kill the actually innocent, the people that want to just try to make a life. Rebels are the people who slaughtered the Rookie when he was unarmed.
I'm sure that's the exact sort of reasoning Cortana is using.
Seriously, this has been an undercurrent in Halo lore since the beginning, but HTT has sealed ONI and the UNSC's place as a far less than benevolent organization. And yeah, honestly I do take the side of the Outer Colonies in most cases. They are being exploited, and the very fact that they have no representation in the UEG yet are still subject to their laws is alone enough to justify wanting independence. That's the whole reason why the U.S. broke away from Great Britain after all.
Again, I'm not sure what kind of double think you need to put yourself through to believe that what Cortana does is monstrous, but when the UNSC does the exact same thing using the exact same type of reasoning you give them a free pass.
I'm sure that's the exact sort of reasoning Cortana is using.
Seriously, this has been an undercurrent in Halo lore since the beginning, but HTT has sealed ONI and the UNSC's place as a far less than benevolent organization. And yeah, honestly I do take the side of the Outer Colonies in most cases. They are being exploited, and the very fact that they have no representation in the UEG yet are still subject to their laws is alone enough to justify wanting independence. That's the whole reason why the U.S. broke away from Great Britain after all.
Again, I'm not sure what kind of double think you need to put yourself through to believe that what Cortana does is monstrous, but when the UNSC does the exact same thing using the exact same type of reasoning you give them a free pass.
Except that's not the logic that she's using. She's using the logic that even though some things just want to exits they all need to do exatly what she says and nothing other than that is acceptable. No freedom, no choice, only punishment for those that want to not do what she wants. HTT is meant to be seen from the side that's not on the UNSCs side, in fact a large portion of the last season was about rebels feeding false information and wanting to twist the reporting to their view. You clearly don't understand American history either. That's like saying the Civil War was because of slavery. It was an aspect but not the sole reason. And the thing is that rebels do have representation they just want to feel like those people then aren't on their side even though they have an elected government and they have representation and political power. They want to seem like they're the stepped on but they are the ones killing people. What Cortana has done is simply monstrous and the UNSC has never caused millions of people to die on many colonies all in three days and plans on subjugating them all to their will and threaten them with death if they don't comply. ONI has done things that are morally questionable but not the UNSC. You're arguing that the people like the ones that killed Rookie, that sicked the Keepers of the One True Freedom on the UNSC in Last Light costing a ton of innocent protesters their lives, are innocent when they aren't.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 14
  4. 15
  5. ...
  6. 16