Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Let me tell you guys why Halsey was clearly evil.
  • Subject: Let me tell you guys why Halsey was clearly evil.
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Let me tell you guys why Halsey was clearly evil.


Posted by: Chester Duncan

Posted by: Gamer Whale

Posted by: Sliding Ghost
Finally, if Glasslands is anything canon, they're screwing with the Arbiter.

Seems like an excuse for fighting elites in H4.
Thats the problem in itself. For those who don't read the books, all their gonna think is WTF??!! Because at the end of Halo 3 the elites and humans are cool but in Halo 4 both of them are back trying to murder each other.


Mostly because ONI thinks it is both smart and secures human safety by giving large numbers of weapons to the Elite group that butchers any and all people who disgrace forerunner items (whether that means blowing it up to get more farmland space, or reverse engineering it/figuring out how it works. Which is humans).

  • 06.03.2012 3:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I thought Halsey was a very intelligent individual who overruled her morals for the Spartan Program, all in the purpose of ending a war. However, I think she sort of lost it towards the end.

  • 06.03.2012 7:33 PM PDT

Do I really need a signature?

Clearly those suicide missions saved mankind in the end, now didn't they?

  • 06.03.2012 7:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Jimmy the Boss
Clearly those suicide missions saved mankind in the end, now didn't they?
What suicide missions? The Spartan III program?

  • 06.03.2012 7:40 PM PDT

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

The latest Halo books remind me of what happened with the Star Wars EU books and games and whatever.

A new author arrives at the franchise and feels that he/she will stamp their mark on it by doing something "radical" which might make the individual book/novel/piece interesting but at the cost of overall storyline consistency. Individually the book might read well and be interesting but when everything else is taken into account it makes little sense and then means that the next author who writes for the franchise has to navigate around these huge obstacles and changes in direction.

"Master Chief is a ghost!"
"Johnson faked his death and the hole in his chest"
"Elites have always hated humans, even the ones that liked humans.... they hated humans the most. But secretly when you couldn't see them"
"There are even biggerer betterer Halos!" (oh wait..)

  • 06.03.2012 7:56 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The moral discussion seems to be coming down to creating the Spartan project, kidnapping and ruining the lives of small children to save millions of lives. The problem with this is there wasn't a clear, certain threat to millions of lives. It was based on some mathematical formula used to supposedly predict that this might eventually happen. That's like people coming to your house to arrest you because they've predicted you're going to commit a crime at some point several years in the future.... and as it would appear from the data pads in Reach, those predictions may not have even been accurate, but manipulated by a council of AI trying to force a Spartan type project along. Can you really predict the future accurately? Accurately to the point where you will damn someone's or several someone's lives over it. Regardless, taking one side or another really is part of it as well. There were two sides. A lot of people don't seem to get that because they think it's so clear cut that Halsey was in the right. It seemed to work out okay, but there is clearly the moral arguments on both sides that have raged for centuries such as "do the ends justify the means," and do, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Whether you as a reader agree with Halsey completely or not, it's pretty clear that history has shown that there are always going to be a lot of people who will come down on EITHER side of this issue, and the writer I think was trying to represent that in the book as opposed to make some statement of her own on the issue.

  • 06.04.2012 7:20 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member


Posted by: Cmdr DaeFaron
Only problem. Halsey didn't butcher children. When you say that, it makes me think of purposeful failed augmentations/deaths.

But you see, Traviss completely changed characters. Like say... The Spartans just bowing down to an ODST going "Captains orders that you can't touch her."

Or Mendez suddenly hating Halsey 100% to the point of considering letting her STARVE TO DEATH. While he hates Halsey for the S2's, he trained and sent spartans to their death before they even hit teens. And he doesn't admit that he's really just as 'bad'.



I could see Mendez still being justified, or at least feeling he is justified by this action. He ordered his soldiers on missions and training operations. If they died, they died in service. From his perspective as a military man, Halsey killed a lot of those soldiers in a lab, on an operating table being cut up like meat and having all previous indications showing that likely at least half of those kids would die. They didn't get the honor of dying like soldiers, but instead like guinea pigs. You may not agree with it, but it's pretty easy to see how a hardened soldier like Mendez might feel like that.

Also on the moral front. Someone said sending clones to replace the kids was the morally right thing to do? How is taking someone else's kid without permission, replacing them with a hastily made copy that will die in a short time equal ANYTHING morally right. It may have been best for the UNSC population, but that doesn't equal morally right. Morally right would be to be honest with those families. It might be harder on them, but honesty would be the moral action.

As far as what someone else said about it being reasonable that Halsey ended up in a cell because of her actions; perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Does it make the person/group who put her there hypocrites? Has there ever been a government on the history of this planet that hasn't been pretty freakin hypocritical? It seems all throughout the previous novels that a LOT of the people in the UNSC where out to get or get rid of Halsey. There's likely a lot of other reasons that she's locked up now that fit just fine with a controlling gov't agency that's not seemed to like her much to begin with in other novels. The morality argument is just the legal one they could pin on her to use as an excuse to try to get her out of the way I'd think.

[Edited on 06.04.2012 7:41 AM PDT]

  • 06.04.2012 7:24 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member


Posted by: Mr Evil 37
Posted by: Chester Duncan
I remember when we could all get along and just talk about something


I've been a part of this website for six years and I don't remember such a time.

  • 06.04.2012 7:35 AM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Posted by: Fearing
The moral discussion seems to be coming down to creating the Spartan project, kidnapping and ruining the lives of small children to save millions of lives. The problem with this is there wasn't a clear, certain threat to millions of lives.


The insurrection and the subsequent civil war if it continued.

It was based on some mathematical formula used to supposedly predict that this might eventually happen. That's like people coming to your house to arrest you because they've predicted you're going to commit a crime at some point several years in the future.... and as it would appear from the data pads in Reach, those predictions may not have even been accurate, but manipulated by a council of AI trying to force a Spartan type project along.

Don't need a formula to see the danger of a group of people spread throughput the galaxy who have unchecked nukes in their possession, use unconventional warfare and have the ability to create their ships. This wasn't some isolated rebellion on some backwater nation, this was galactic in scale.

Can you really predict the future accurately? Accurately to the point where you will damn someone's or several someone's lives over it.

So what else could be done with negotiating to terrorists

Regardless, taking one side or another really is part of it as well. There were two sides. A lot of people don't seem to get that because they think it's so clear cut that Halsey was in the right. It seemed to work out okay, but there is clearly the moral arguments on both sides that have raged for centuries such as "do the ends justify the means," and do, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Whether you as a reader agree with Halsey completely or not, it's pretty clear that history has shown that there are always going to be a lot of people who will come down on EITHER side of this issue, and the writer I think was trying to represent that in the book as opposed to make some statement of her own on the issue.

Nope, Traviss did make a statement, Halsey is completely evil and if you think she isn't you are a terrible person. She was the most negatively bashed person in the novel and the only one to face potential starvation and murder from other people.

Nylund managed to paint a balanced picture, but since Halsey is technically his character and he spent the most time with her, it's not a surprise.

[Edited on 06.04.2012 9:48 AM PDT]

  • 06.04.2012 9:48 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Posted by: Fearing
The moral discussion seems to be coming down to creating the Spartan project, kidnapping and ruining the lives of small children to save millions of lives. The problem with this is there wasn't a clear, certain threat to millions of lives.


The insurrection and the subsequent civil war if it continued.

It was based on some mathematical formula used to supposedly predict that this might eventually happen. That's like people coming to your house to arrest you because they've predicted you're going to commit a crime at some point several years in the future.... and as it would appear from the data pads in Reach, those predictions may not have even been accurate, but manipulated by a council of AI trying to force a Spartan type project along.

Don't need a formula to see the danger of a group of people spread throughput the galaxy who have unchecked nukes in their possession, use unconventional warfare and have the ability to create their ships. This wasn't some isolated rebellion on some backwater nation, this was galactic in scale.


But that WAS exactly how that conclusion of danger was seen. It was calculated through a formula, that formula was THE evidence that let the Spartan project move (reluctantly by many higher ups)forward... and it was actually wrong, tampered with by a council of AI as seen in the Reach data pads. I wouldn't call them 'unchecked' nukes, as both sides had nukes. That tends to deter an overuse as the other side knows what happens if they start trying that stuff. The books (written by Nylund) paint the picture of most of the rebels wanting to be left alone to govern themselves and that those are the things they were fighting for. "Backwater" no, but not a group that's likely to bring about the destruction of mankind as they just wanted self governance as suggested by Nylunds own work, not just from him writing that these conclusions about human military actions strictly through math, but even by the picture Nylund paint of the rebels in stories like his contribution to Halo Evolutions about Preston Cole(who is possibly off living in a rebel colony himself as was strongly hinted).


Can you really predict the future accurately? Accurately to the point where you will damn someone's or several someone's lives over it.

So what else could be done with negotiating to terrorists


I think my previous statement regarding that makes my point about their terrorist status. Certainly there were cells that may have been more terroristic in nature, but most rebels wanted freedom, not to suicide bomb their point across.

Regardless, taking one side or another really is part of it as well. There were two sides. A lot of people don't seem to get that because they think it's so clear cut that Halsey was in the right. It seemed to work out okay, but there is clearly the moral arguments on both sides that have raged for centuries such as "do the ends justify the means," and do, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Whether you as a reader agree with Halsey completely or not, it's pretty clear that history has shown that there are always going to be a lot of people who will come down on EITHER side of this issue, and the writer I think was trying to represent that in the book as opposed to make some statement of her own on the issue.

Nope, Traviss did make a statement, Halsey is completely evil and if you think she isn't you are a terrible person. She was the most negatively bashed person in the novel and the only one to face potential starvation and murder from other people.

Nylund managed to paint a balanced picture, but since Halsey is technically his character and he spent the most time with her, it's not a surprise.

Travis went in as narrator herself in the book? That seems odd. The picture may have been painted of Halsey as evil, but it was done so by the statements of specific characters in the book. Were any of those characters any more on the up and up that we should trust them to know who is evil or that the author should write them as being completely correct in their judgement? Or that the author should assume we as the reader are supposed to make our judgement on Halsey strictly by the statements of fictional characters who have come to their own conclusions for their own purposes? Other people in a story wanting to kill/starve/murder someone does not equal portraying that person as bad, it portrays them as sacrificing a heck of a lot for what they've done.

[Edited on 06.04.2012 1:14 PM PDT]

  • 06.04.2012 12:53 PM PDT

A: The rebels groups who TRULY wanted to just be left alone got that, they fought in their system alone, the disappeared. Like the ones in the rubble, they wanted to be left alone and thus stayed to themselves.
B: The rebels who we hear about were the more populous, bigger groups that were nutjobs and terrorists. Nukes weren't a deterrent because the rebels were using theirs freely.
C: That 'formula' as I recall, was created and worked out AFTER the start of the rebel attacks. It looked at the trend, and predicted based on that. The trend being each attack got worse and worse. You know, first it's spacing a corvette crew and murdering the AI. Then it's horribly damaging three destroyers and killing most of the people there. Then it's destroying a cruise liner filled with civilians. Then nuking a colony that actually has been rebel-friendly. What's next? Setting off a slipspace bomb on the surface of Reach? The rebels we hear about ARE the damn terrorists who even if granted independence, would still keep attacking. The ones who would murder 100 civilians just to try to harm a squad of ODST's. The ones truly wanting to be left alone and self-govern, as I said, were the ones that disappeared. The ones that didn't murder civilians.
D: So what is morally better, to place a flash-clone that may die quickly, or might not (As we have proof of one that survived a good while), to replace the kid, thus giving closure to the families. Or to not place a flash-clone there, thus making the family wonder for years, if not forever, what happened to their child? Did John wander in a back alley and get murdered? Did Kelly get kidnapped and taken as a slave?

The only reason to not replace and give that closure, would be if the Spartans were planned to meet/reunite with their families later on. Which they weren't. After they started training, they could never go back and be accepted. Chief in palace hotel said that outright. If childhood friends found out what happened to the kids, it'd rip the UNSC and humanity apart.


Edit: I'd agree with the whole "Traviss doesn't say Halsey is evil, it's just the characters." If it wasn't for the fact they nearly EVERY. SINGLE. CHARACTER. who talks about Halsey is hateful/bashing/painting her as evil. There isn't an equal number going "Oh, these are the good parts!" Hell, Naomi, the Spartan II in the ONI group, as I know it, NEVER, ONCE defends Halsey. She just sits in the background while everybody bashes the doctor.

Just like the Elites. Previous lore clearly painted a large, growing movement (particularlly the youth), as coming to respect humans. In Glassland, there isn't a single Elite that respects humanity. ALL elites shown (Even Thel partly) are either "Humans deserve to die." or "We don't have the strength to fight the humans." Elites consider all humans to by lying vermin(where the heck did the lying part come from?). That large growing group of Elites who respect humans? Never, once, mentioned. As far as Glasslands is concerned, you only have two camps of Elites. Camp A: Humans can't be trusted really, but we can't fight them and win right now so we'll support peace until that time. and Camp B: Humans should be wiped out, this moment. Also any touching forerunner tech is worthy of being butchered.


So yeah, in point, glasslands loves showing ONLY one side of the thing. Traviss presents the BAD sides, but NEVER once the good. She never shows Thel and some Elites talking about how humans are honorable and trustworthy, that the hate is based on a prophet's lies, and humans can help the Elites regain their strength. She never shows the Spartan II's going "Now wait a minute, that might be true but Halsey also had some very good things she did." (BTW, Halsey did make sure that all Spartan II's had the best chance of surviving, so stop the bull-blam!- that she treated them like labrats and didn't give a damn.)

[Edited on 06.04.2012 1:55 PM PDT]

  • 06.04.2012 1:41 PM PDT

"Find where the liar hides, so that I may place my boot between his gums!" - Rtas 'Vadum

Posted by: ROBERTO jh
You cannot argue that a major part of why she did what she did was because she was a scientist. Scientist first, patriot second.
As a scientist, she does her research and experiments to see if they would work. So in effect, she butchered children just to see if they could become superior.
These two statements seem to be in contradiction. You say she had more than one motivation, then reduce it to just experimentation as the motivation. Obviously she had more than one, and I can see her scientific curiosity being a part of that motivation. However she encountered Carver's report before knowing about a S-II program, and then only deduced that kids would have been needed once she was already underway in the project. Were her only interests in Human potential, then I imagine that ONI would have simply appealed to that, rather than lead her on some bread crumb trail to Dr. Carver.

Posted by: ROBERTO jh
Another person did that. His name was Himmler. Like how he would freeze one twin and/or burn the other to see if they were connected.

Hyperbole is fun.

Posted by: ROBERTO jh
If you take the Wess'har philosophy that motive doesn't matter, only outcomes, than yes, it is perfectly justifiable.

How can motives not matter though? Are you under the impression that an "ends justifies the means" mindset is not a motive in itself, because that's the vibe I am getting here.

Otherwise it sounds like you are saying that it doesn't matter what the character of the person is, so long as their actions result in a positive outcome, e.g. Someone intending to rob a bank is instead held up like everyone else there by another thief, but uses his own gun (That he intended to use to hold up that very same bank with) to apprehend the thief and free himself. He would be viewed as a hero, but that doesn't excuse the fact that he was just about to do the very same thing had circumstances been different.

Posted by: ROBERTO jh
I'm sorry, but that is the human race. And as I said, the very fact this discussion is being presented here in this forum is just proving with each post that Traviss was right. No one can agree on anything, it is all perspective. What you have to do is ignore your own biases and look at the story completely objectively. Then you can say who is right and who is wrong. And as far as you're concerned, someone will be right, others will be wrong. You may see the former as a genius and the latter as a blithering idiot. But they don't see themselves that way. They and their supporters see the rse. It is all perspective.

You're sort of pointing out the obvious a bit here, or I'm just not interpreting correctly. I didn't say that this wasn't subjective, I asked why a particular perspective exists, which was your own statement earlier.

[Edited on 06.04.2012 2:01 PM PDT]

  • 06.04.2012 2:00 PM PDT

Many gave their lives so that we could live on. I intend to honor them by remembering them. Remember Cyborg. Remember John. Remember Noble.

It IS possible she used the Covenant to make an excuse for the SPARTAN program. I mean, she's clever. But I think you are overthinking.

  • 06.04.2012 4:03 PM PDT

Do I really need a signature?


Posted by: Sierra 1993DJC

Posted by: Jimmy the Boss
Clearly those suicide missions saved mankind in the end, now didn't they?
What suicide missions? The Spartan III program?


No, the Spartan II program. The Spartan III program was lead by Lieutenant Kurt Ambrose.

  • 06.04.2012 5:37 PM PDT


Posted by: George 257
It IS possible she used the Covenant to make an excuse for the SPARTAN program. I mean, she's clever. But I think you are overthinking.


Yes. She used the Covenant, a force that wasn't even KNOWN about until long after the Spartan II's were started... as an excuse to make them.

  • 06.06.2012 12:35 PM PDT

~Thomsn0w

:)

  • 06.06.2012 1:06 PM PDT

Think before you post

I've always though of Halsey as an amoral character who questions her actions, but always wants to find a way to justify the means. She created the Spartans because she had to, not because she wanted to, and questioned her decisions at every step but reassured herself that it was all worth it.

  • 06.06.2012 1:49 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3