FANDOM


This is the talk page for Sovereign.
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,
chatroom, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Piloting a Reaper Edit

How many people think that it would be great that you can actually pilot one of the 100,000,000,000,000 Reapers in Mass Effect 2 or 3? You should be able to do that.

Uh... they kind of 'pilot' themselves, considering they are conscious entities. I'm sure your suggestions as to where they should go are ... interpreted. I'm certain most would simply tell them to 'go to hell'.
Such a thing I seriously - make that 100% - doubt that it will be a gameplay mechanic. It may be possible with modifications, even in ME1.

Leviathan of Dis Edit

Could Sovereign have been the "Leviathan of Dis" mentioned in passing in the information about the planet Jartar?

The stories seem to closely match:

  • The Leviathan of Dis, the apparent corpse of a genetically engineered living starship estimated at nearly a billion years old, "disappears" from the bottom of a crater on the planet Jartar after a visit by a batarian survey team twenty years ago (2160s, since current year is 2183). The batarians that witnessed it vociferously denied it ever existed, even as salarian researchers had recorded evidence of the Leviathan while it was dormant on the planet.
  • Sovereign, a Reaper with the appearance of an enormous dreadnought, was discovered in the mid-2100s (perhaps the 2160s) by one of the survey teams of aristocrat Edan Had'dah (a batarian). Sovereign, which has gone through untold cycles of the devouring and rebirth of galactic life at intervals of approximately 50,000 years, may have had a lifespan similar to the Leviathan's. It spends the 50,000 year gap hidden and dormant within the galaxy.

Coincidence?

I agree but could the Reapers have transformed themselvs from Leviathans to Reapers for some reason.

Abased Fear 06:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems plausible, given the similar timings and evidence at hand.

As Sovereign stated on Vermire, the beings like it have no name, they were only labelled as 'Reapers' by the Protheans. Thus it doesn't really require any 'transformation', just different people referring to the same object as different things. Leviathan is a logical name for something really, really big that seems to be a ship or structure. It was also discovered by the Batarians, and a survey team at that, which makes me think maybe those Batarians were Had'dah's survey team. It was also strenuously denied, and seemed to disappear. This could have been the result of Sovereign's indoctrination being used to hide it's position, and of course Sovereign eventually became space-bourne, meaning it would have left the crater.

Looking further into the more dispersed evidence, David Anderson told Shepard that the mission he went on with Saren (that lead to Saren capturing the scientific work on Sovereign and ultimately ceasing Sovereign for himself) was 'about 20 years ago'. That puts Saren's involvement slap-bang in the mid-2160s. From Kahlee Sanders's accounts of Dr Shu Qian's discovery and obsession with the artifact, it was only a relatively short while before the Sidon massacre, maybe a year or so. That means the artifact Shu Qian was looking at was discovered at the beginning of the 2160s, a time that by general logic would be said to be 'mid-2100s'. Also the Leviathan was discovered in a crater on Jartar. We see from Eden Prime that Soverign's landing on a planet causes a crater and massive damage to the surface. It would seem plausible therefore that Soverign could have buried itself at the end of the Prothean extinction, when the Reapers had finished harvesting and wiping out the Protheans. Perhaps by flying into the planets surface creating what looked like a large celestial impact crater, or by creating a 'hole' in which to lay dormant using it's immense power and mass effect fields.

It's still very much unclear what Sovereign actually was and how it was constructed. Although it is a 'machine', it is well known in our own contemporary theory that biological constructs can be used to create computer and biomechanical systems. With the vastly advanced technology at the disposal of Sovereign's kind it is logical to assume such rudimentary boundaries as those between mechanical and biological would break down. The likely originals of these sentient beings of such enormous size and complex construction, in my opinion, is either a civilisation that created them to act as their guadrians, and the guardians turned on them, or the members of the civilisation themselves became so advanced and powerful that they evolved through their advances in technology and pursuit of immortality to be these enormous beings with seemingly infinite lifespan.

--LeathamGrant 15:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that the Reapers may not even know who their creators are. Perhaps there is a more mysterious force working behind the scenes, or they were once and organic races from the beginning of the universe and augmented themselves as cyborg before they got engulf by their own enhancements and may want someone to end their misery. Just saying, it's only my theory.

--Unic of the borg 19:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. They may have had creators who died out, or they may have gotten a superiority complex and destroyed the race that created them and kept on doing so, or they could even have created themselves, as you said, by self augmentation to the point of becoming a giant sentient machine themselves. Whoever or whatever created them was adept in the art of telepathy and Mass Effect manipulation to the point of being able to use both overwhelmingly against any other organic or mechanical species. Who knows. This could be the ultimate pinnacle of what the Geth would develop into over millions of years of evolution, perhaps?

One hypothesis I developed on the matter is that the Husk spikes (Dragon's Teeth) that the Geth used are actually a tool used by Sovereign's kind. The Codex states they extract the meagre small amounts of resources from the bodies and then turn them into terror troops. This mechanism might not be so effective for resource gathering on the scale it was used in during the Sovereign incident, but used en mass during the Prothean extinction they would have sucked the very essence from 100s of Trillions of beings from across the galaxy. That to me sounds like a pretty efficient way to wipe out organic life and then gather the resources from them and use those to self repair. Be honest, even a machine as good as Sovereign is likely to wear over the course of 50,000 years, or at the very least the batteries will run down a bit (although I guess they probably run off eezo). --LeathamGrant 00:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also entirely possible that the Reapers have simply existed for so long that they don't even remember how they came to be. Nobody knows in any real detail how human civilization came to exist - heck, most adults can barely recall their childhood. It's conceivable that as a race they're simply so ancient that they just don't know anymore. Alternatively, Sovereign itself does not know as an individual/whatever the heck it is, or Sovereign knows but was not telling Shepard (note how it avoided directly answering any question or telling Shepard anything immediately useful), or Sovereign was lying to throw Shepard off (it is not impossible that something with the intelligence level of a Reaper could figure out deception). --175.38.241.123 11:20, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Except that is a lot of speculation and frankly there is absolutely nothing to support it. Sovereign could just have not told Shepard, which is the most likely solution. Lancer1289 17:23, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Trivia: In Sovereign's conversation with Sheppard on Virmire, one of his responses to Sheppard's questions is "We are each a nation." Sovereign's name seems to be a play on that.--69.200.247.132 18:26, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

But if anything, since (regardless of how you play the game) you know the name Sovereign long before you have the chance to hear him say "We are each a nation", wouldn't it be the phrase that is a play on the name? And it is worth remembering that unless the word national or something to that effect is tacked onto it, the word sovereign on it's own, whether as a noun or an adjective, doesn't really have anything to do with nations or countries, it refers more to a ruler, a defunct currency, or an abstract concept of supreme authority. Now sovereignty, on the other hand, does have meaning pertaining to a nation w/out having to tack anything on, but his name isn't Sovereignty, now is it? :P SpartHawg948 20:38, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

DiscoveryEdit

I'm putting a tentative date on the discovery of Sovereign as being 2162. Evidence for that: Had'dah claims he's put in 'three years of groundwork' on unlocking Sovereign's secrets (see ME:R pg310). In addition, Kahlee started working with Dr. Qian in 2163 (pg175) but he didn't start acting oddly until 'a few months ago' in 2165. That allows enough time for Had'dah to find Sovereign, realise he needed an expert, and spend a year getting in touch with Qian (p245). --Tullis 07:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Could have also took a year for him to organize a dreadnought to retrieve the Leviathan. Since the Jatar description states a batarian dreadnought took the ship "twenty years ago" and the ME1 date was 2183. That would line up with Kahlee starting to work with Qian. Also, Sovereign is described as being found "beyond the Perseus Veil" and Hades Gamma is right on the Perseus Arm. Mallissin 19:33, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

"Twenty years ago" could just as easily have meant 2162 in that context. 85.147.165.48 00:56, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign pictures Edit

Since the screen shots in this article are rather small I have made a few that could eventually replace them, in 720p resolution. Have no fear or copyrights, I assure you these are made by me from the in-game cut scenes played with a Bink video player and captured with "Print Screen". Anyone could have done the same :) I have posted across a few articles, so be sure to check them out as well (Sovereign, Destiny Ascension, FTL, M35 Mako, Mass Relay and Citadel). Here are the HD screen shots for Sovereign. As I have no idea how to upload images here I will let you do it.

http://c.imagehost.org/0498/SovereingClose.png http://c.imagehost.org/0613/SovereingGeth.png http://c.imagehost.org/view/0398/SovereingUplink.png

69.159.102.144 17:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Darkdrium

Sovereign's Dimensions Edit

Hi, does someone knows the exact dimensions of the Sovereign (especially the lenght), i would really appreaciate if someone posts them. Cgs93 19:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Length is given in the main article as 2km but the rest is a mystery unfortunately. --Tullis 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this: "Sovereign's power of indoctrination is also myth-like, further connecting it to a demon." So it's myth-like. It's also Force-like, but that doesn't mean there's a connection between Emperor Palpatine and Sovereign. This is just too tenuous.--HighTime 20:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Character BoxEdit

Should we add a character box to the page to complete the characters set? Since he's already in the adversaries section on the characters page, it probably wouldn't ruin much. He has some pretty cool villain quotes to choose from too.--TheWilsonator 01:50, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

The idea of this article is to keep data about Sovereign being the actual villain below the spoiler line. And this page should already have a quote on it for Sovereign... --Tullis 12:43, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. It was a pretty cool twist. Probably best not for the benefit of those who haven't go round to playing ME yet.--TheWilsonator 12:57, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Acquisition of the name Sovereign Edit

So, as there wasn't quite enough room in the summary to flesh out my reasoning, and as I was going to quote the relevant passage from Mass Effect: Revelation here anyways, here it is. I removed the bit about how Legion states that Saren gave Sovereign the name Sovereign for a couple reasons. It just doesn't jive with the other source we have on the subject, Mass Effect: Revelation, which states that when Saren first found out about it, the Reaper was already being referred to as Sovereign, implying the name was bestowed on it by either Edan Had'dah or Shu Qian. As stated on page 320 of Revelation:

  • "In the privacy of his small one man craft, Saren had been studying the data on the flash drive inside Qian's metal case for hours. His suspicions had been correct: the alien technology was a vessel of some sort. It was called Sovereign; a magnificent relic from the time of the Prothean extinction; an enormous warship of tremendous power.

This is well before Saren ever laid eyes on Sovereign itself. He was simply reviewing the data acquired from Dr Qian. Factor into this the fact that we have, here on this very site, a statement from a (former) writer for BioWare, who worked on ME and ME2, writing much of the material for Legion, where he points out that there are often-times statements made by characters who really aren't in any position to know for sure what they're talking about, so these comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. How would Legion and the geth know for sure that it was Saren who coined the name Sovereign, and that he didn't just appropriate the name from the people he killed for the data? And that is my reasoning. SpartHawg948 01:40, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


We completely agree. --Dark Scion

Could Sovereign's name be an ironic reference to John Miller's "On Liberty" - "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."? Given the Reapers' habit of using indoctrination and mutilation?96.250.45.133 19:19, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to move Edit

Moving Soveriegn to Nazara was a bad idea. Whatever it called itself, it went by Sovereign for all of ME and was not refered to by any other name until near the end of ME2 and that was in conversation with only one character. Nazara is not used more, every one will be looking for Sovereign first because it is much more common. The page should be moved back.

And it was, for exactly those reasons. Moves of this nature need to be discussed on the talk page first, not just done on a whim. There's usually a reason (or several reasons) that the move in question had not been done already. SpartHawg948 21:05, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


Ahhh... is it not simple to just have the term "Soveriegn" redirect to page Nazara. Dark Scion 23:29, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Simple, but the move itself to the new name is a spoiler, and article names should not contain spoilers. --silverstrike 00:01, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yup. The more appropriate course of action would be to have the term "Nazara" redirect to the Sovereign page. Wait a tick, it does already! Huzzah! And yes, it is a spoiler issue. Same reason the Tali'Zorah nar Rayya article is called Tali'Zorah nar Rayya, and not Tali'Zorah vas Normandy, and vas Normandy and vas Neema redirect to it. SpartHawg948 00:45, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Indoctrination Edit

Indoctrination is often stated to be a reaper's power, but could it be just Sovereign's ability? It would suit his vanguardness, manipulating races in big ways behind the scenes, to make sure they advanced enough and that the citadel would serve it's purpose and all. I know, Harbinger was mind-controlling the collector general, right? Well, it seems to me to be a different sort of mind control, because most of Sovereign's puppets lost their mind and became dribbling idiots, mindless without Sovereign. But Harbinger's only apparent puppet was the collector general, who's natural ability could have been the control of collector soldiers. If that was the general's natural ability, it was probably a mental ability, which would support my theory that Sovereign and Harbinger's mind control methods were different. Perhaps all the reapers have different abilities suited to their purpose, with Sovereign being infiltration, and Harbinger being long term slave control. 24.72.49.251 03:03, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Vigil stated that the Reapers indoctrinated Protheans. Harbinger's alternate form of mind control was most likely put in place because nothing but regular indoctrination would have rendered them useless once their minds had degenerated. Also, the derelict clearly had the power of indoctrination. JediMB 03:02, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
Did you forget about the Derelict Reaper that you are sent to retrieve the IFF? The Cerberus scientists on board suffered from the effects of Indoctrination as well. So Sovereign isn't the only one with that particular form of mind control. It is probably more logical to assume that Harbinger is unique in its form of mind control, or probably a better term would be, manipulation. Magicman10893 05:12, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Actually soverign did have the same power as harbinger, remember the end of ME1 where soverign takes direct control over Saren? Also, the collectors used a large number of husks and things that vere created from husks, so Harbinger at least had the technology for indoctrination, hence had the power to indoctrinate. Although at one point Shepard notes that these husks are upgraded, so perhaps there is a difference, although slight. Alkanis, 28/1/2011

Actually... no, we can't say Sovereign did have the same power as Harbinger, not based on what you're talking about. We know that Sovereign took control of Saren's corpse (which is quite different from taking "direct control over Saren") by using various implants scattered throughout Saren's body. There is at least one major difference there: Sovereign was only seen to take over Saren's corpse, while Harbinger is seen multiple times actually taking over living beings. There is a possible major difference in that we don't know if Harbinger used implants or some other means to assume control of the Collectors. So no, we can't assume that Sovereign did have the same power as Harbinger. As far as we know, Harbinger is unique. SpartHawg948 07:07, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Its actually the same process, they just engineered the Collectors to be controllable through a single 'relay' Collector. Which they most likely control through implants, like Sovereign did with Saren. So I don't think Harbinger is the only one who can do this. Painmak3r 21:41, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... we need to see a source for that. You're making some sweeping claims with nothing to back them, so again, we can't just assume that it is the same process, and that what Sovereign did to Saren is the same as a different process that Harbinger does to Collectors, as they are different, as I mentioned above. SpartHawg948 22:05, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Retribution? It would only make sense if its the same process. They set up a direct link to the victim's mind and take control from there. They re-engineered the Protheans into Collectors. Harbinger takes control of the collector general, who in turn can take control of his drones. This way Harbinger can take control of drones which are easily killed, but he doesn't glitch or "die" like Sovereign did. We are talking about ancient god machines here, not some super villain with only one superpower.Painmak3r 07:26, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

I have read Retribution. It's actually sitting right here on my desk. Again though, it must be pointed out that what we see in ME2 and Retribution, and what we see in ME, are not the same. In the former, we see living beings that are taken over and physically manipulated by Reapers. (It should be pointed out that we can't be sure that these are the same processes, as in one case it's the Reapers doing it themselves and in the other they operate via an intermediary) In the latter, a corpse is "activated", for lack of a better term, and manipulated by a Reaper. Dead bodies and living beings are two different things, are they not? Again, all I'm saying is we can't just assume that the processes are one and the same. You yourself point out another difference: Harbinger does not appear to suffer the same ill effects as Sovereign when the Collectors it controls are killed. Given the dissimilarities, we can't just assume they are the same. SpartHawg948 07:55, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Harbinger assumes control of the collector general, who takes control of the collector drone. Its not Harbinger who would take the shock if the drone died, since he is controlling the general and not the drone himself. Also, a dead body full of implants and nanotech isn't too far off from a living body with all these implants. Don't forget when he assumes control of a drone its healthbar disappears, so its safe to assume that upon activating the link the host drone is killed and just a shell full of implants is left. Just like Sovereign took control of Saren when he died, all that was left was implants. So I have to disagree that the dissimilarities are too strong, they are actually too similar if you look at all the facts.Painmak3r 15:51, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Again though, I find myself needing to point out that, for the purposes of this wiki, there are no such things as safe assumptions. And with all due respect, your last comment is chock full of assumptions. First, you assume that Harbinger does not assume control of the various Collectors, but instead assumes control of the Collector General, and that it is the Collector General who assumes control of the individual Collectors, as opposed to it merely being Harbinger who does it using the CG as a conduit or amplifier or some such. This is an assumption not supported by the facts. In fact, while not explicitly contradicted, it is implicitly contradicted by the game itself, which gives the clear impression, once Harbinger's true identity is learned, that it was Harbinger all along, with the CG having little or no true power or even free will.
Next, you assume that there was Reaper nanotech in Saren's body. "Also, a dead body full of implants and nanotech isn't too far off from a living body with all these implants." Of course, nothing of the sort is ever stated. It is stated that there are Reaper implants in Saren's body, but no mention of nanotech is ever made.
Finally, you assume that a Collector dies when the CG assumes control of it. This, of course, is an assumption not supported by the facts.
So, as we have seen, the facts you maintain show similarity are in fact not facts at all, but rather a string of assumptions. And, as I've said all along, we need to avoid assumptions. We should assume nothing, and go only with what we know to be true, not what we think or assume could be true. SpartHawg948 19:09, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Right. Because only sticking to the things we know has ever gotten us anywhere in this world. Anyhow, IIRC in Retribution they said something about injecting the guy with Reaper nanites. Why wouldn't Sovereign use the same technology on Saren? The drones do die when Harbinger assumes control, their HP bar disappears and all that is left is a shell full of implants. Just like Saren. Yes the general acting as a relay is an assumption, but really... It would have no purpose if it isn't used as a relay. Painmak3r 19:51, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about going places "in this world", merely on this wiki. This wiki is a factual encyclopedia, and as such, we stick to fact, not assumption.
You are correct that in Retribution they mention injecting Grayson (aka "the guy") with nanites. I never disputed this, as it is fact. Now, as to why Sovereign wouldn't do the same to Saren: Sovereign may not have had access to nanites. Sovereign may not have deemed nanites necessary, deciding that implants alone would suffice. From what we've seen, introduction of nanites appears to be an invasive procedure. Saren may not have allowed this while he may have allowed "upgrades" (really Reaper implants). All this is mere speculation, posed because you ask why Sovereign wouldn't use the same tech on Saren. What remains fact, however, is that there is no proof that Sovereign did use nanites on Saren. None. Therefore, stating that Sovereign did is an assumption.
You again assume that Collectors die when possessed. As evidence, you point out that their HP bars disappear. This is, however, specious given that we witness many living things in-game which do not possess HP bars, and many non-living things that do. HP bars are an in-game mechanic, not an indicator of life or the lack thereof.
Finally, and happily, I can use fact to dispute your last point. You state that the assumption that the CG is a relay is founded, given that "It would have no purpose if it isn't used as a relay." Well, to that I must ask: Have you read Redemption? Where the CG serves as the public face of the Collectors (and Harbinger), particularly when dealing with the Shadow Broker? The CG serves as an effective puppet, a visible leader to keep inquisitive people from pursuing the truth too far and learning of the involvement of the Reapers. So, fortunately, we have actually seen a purpose the CG has other than the assumed role as a relay. And, as you may note if you re-read my comments, I suggest that there may be other roles for the CG besides serving as a relay, as you suggest, with the CG being the one who actually controls the Collectors. The CG could merely serve as an amplifier of sorts, boosting the signal from Harbinger, allowing the Reaper to control the rank-and-file Collectors. Again, speculation, merely intended to display that there are other possibilities besides the one you pose. Luckily, the facts do show other purposes for the CG. In summation, I'll merely reiterate that facts do not support the claim that Sovereign and Harbinger were using the same ability. The only way to arrive at this conclusion is assumption which is not supported by, and in some cases contradicted by, observed fact. And assumptions just don't cut it on this wiki. SpartHawg948 20:36, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Implants, if you talk to Mordin enough, he mentions that a lot of the Collector's organs have been replaced with 'tech' - glands and digestive system, I believe. And Harbinger's control seems to kill the Collector he possesses (well, it crumbles into ash/dust as it dies, like Saren did) so it can't be all that dissimilar to Sovereign's method. However, Harbinger has to control many Collectors. Sovereign only had a handful of people to control (it did not have to directly control the geth; the virus it created handled that) - Saren, Benezia, and a few others. So it's possible that because of the large number of organisms it has to control, Harbinger is forced to work via the Collector-General, whilst Sovereign could work directly through implants because it had less to control, therefore more power to exert in controlling one individual. I would imagine that it would be somewhat draining to be controlling many hundreds (or thousands) of Collectors, and that would make it difficult to focus any attention on a single individual. Reapers might be crazy powerful, but they're not infinitely so. --175.38.241.123 11:31, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Again there is a lot of speculation and you can't base anything on similar appearances. Also as to the control methods, the Collector one is a lot of speculation as well with no substantial support. As to the geth, the virus didn't exist at the time so it doesn’t even play a part. Lancer1289 17:26, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Nazara = Nazarene? Edit

It's a bit of a stretch, but think about it. I seriously doubt they'd actually make a reference to an alien dreadnought pretending to be Jesus though, that'd cheese a lot of people off. But then, it sounds exactly like the kind of envelope they'd push. 99.197.128.56 02:41, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Could also be a reference to Hindi or Turkish word "Nazar" which means eye respectively, or Evil Eye in Turkish. So, Naraza could just mean "The Eye" or watcher. Which might make sense, since Sovereign repeatedly calls himself the Vanguard, so he could be a scout. Mallissin 09:35, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Just want to point out- Vanguard and scout are not synonymous. The vanguard is the advance element of an army or fleet, the lead element of a larger formation. Scouts, on the other hand, generally operate completely separately from the main body of an army. So saying that since he calls himself the vanguard, he could be a scout is like me saying that since he calls himself the vanguard, he could be the reserve force. It just doesn't make sense. SpartHawg948 03:44, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
I was associating the "eye" references from Nazar with the vanguard mention in the ME1 speach to presume scout, since scouts are typically a part of an army's vanguard that watches/surveys the battlefield to help prepare for the coming battle. Mallissin 09:35, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
The vanguard is the lead element of the main body. The scouts operate ahead of the vanguard. In some cases, for extremely small land units, scouts and vanguards are the same, but in the case of large units and for fleets, scouts and vanguard are independent of each other. One of the main reasons for this is because, by necessity, scouts (both in the fleet and the army context) need to be fast, necessitating a lessening of armor and weaponry. As such, scouts generally avoid battle, or operate on the periphery, as flankers. The vanguard, on the other hand, is the first unit to engage the enemy, and tend to be more heavily armed and armored than the scouts. I'm not trying to seem to anal or anything, and I'm not really concerned with the references to the Hindi or Turkish words, but as a service-member, I do take special interest in terminology and whatnot, and I'm just trying to correct a misuse/misassociation of terms. SpartHawg948 18:05, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign's quoteEdit

"We are legion" is an incomplete quote. The actual line, in context is:

Shepard: [Are there more of you?] Where are the rest of the Reapers? Are you the last of your kind?
Sovereign: We are legion. The time of our return is coming. Our numbers will darken the sky of every world. You cannot escape your doom.

He is using the word in the sense of a large army, or a large number. This is the same sense that the biblical quote uses the word in, but not necessarily a reference to it. He is dismissing the notion that he is the only Reaper. This is further backed up by the shot of the reaper fleet at the end of Mass Effect 2, their numbers could easily be described as "legion."

He describes the multiple-mind nature of the reapers in a different exchange:

Shepard: [Why are you doing this?] What do you want from us? Slaves? Resources?
Sovereign: My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation. Independent, free of all weakness. You cannot even grasp the nature of our existence.

While it is still possible that he was referencing the Bible, it seems more likely to me that he was just using the word in a perfectly valid, if slightly poetic, way. It fits with the style of everything else he said too. --Gelg 23:19, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely true. However, it pretty much goes without saying that its phrase (as Sovereign is an it, not a he) is being used to reference the vast numbers of the Reapers. The trivia bit is not to detail what Sovereign meant when using the quote, but rather to point out possible references and sources from which the quote was derived, as this is a work of fiction, and external sources are frequently referenced in dialogue. Stating that the line literally refers to the Reapers themselves is not trivia, it's a literal interpretation. SpartHawg948 23:22, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but the trivia as it is currently worded implies something contrary to the apparent intent of the line. Someone who only half-remembers the line could easily interpret it to mean that Sovereign misquoted the Bible while describing its mind. Since there's already a nearly identical piece of trivia on Legion's article, and there are similarities between the characters, the chance of confusion is even greater. Since it's possible the writers did have Bible quotes in mind when writing Sovereign's dialog, the trivia point stands, but I'm uncomfortable with the way the current state of the trivia represents the quote. --Gelg 23:48, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

How so? The current bit doesn't state (or even imply) that Sovereign is misquoting a Biblical reference. It states that a likely reference for the line itself is the Bible. At no point is it implied that Sovereign itself is familiar with the Bible. And, given what we know of Reapers, the Biblical reference works just as well for a Reaper (many minds in one body) as it does for the geth known as Legion. And given that one game came out well before the other, the two characters and references are not mutually exclusive. SpartHawg948 23:54, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean they are mutually exclusive, but that it would be easy, given Legion's trivia, to interpret Sovereign's trivia the same way. The fact that Sovereign and the Reapers could be accurately described using the biblical quote just makes it that much easier to misinterpret the line out of context.
Since the trivia makes no reference to the intent of the line, the way the Gerasene Demon's intent is explained in the trivia implies that Sovereign had the same intent, and that the writers were trying to put the same words in its "mouth," and misremembered the quote. --Gelg 00:02, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

But the trivia bit doesn't imply anything, and when you get right down to it, the fact that the Biblical quote includes 'for we are many' would seem to suggest that the reference was intended to refer to the vast numbers of the Reapers, doesn't it? Regardless, the point of the trivia is to suggest a possible reference, not to suggest it and then offer one possible interpretation over others. The reader is permitted to form their own interpretation. SpartHawg948 00:20, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

I personally agree with the original point, and I think that it's really a bit too short to be considered a direct reference to the bible anyway. "We are legion" is just a very colourful way of saying "We are many", and while the phrasing may indeed be borrowed from the bible I'm not so sure it's enough of a reference to justify saying so. Just as the phrase "darken the sky" could be a reference to several things but is more likely just borrowed as a more colourful way of phrasing Sovereign's (awesome) speech. Personally I think the basis for the trivia point is too weak to include, and readers are free enough to interpret Sovereign's speech as they please already, to which end it may make more sense to just include some of his quotes for reference. -- 77.101.25.130 14:19, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Sovereign and the Protheans/Collectors Edit

Spoilers abound.




We all know by now that each Reaper is based off the race that was assimilated to create it. But looking at the Collectors, and looking at Sovereign, I don't really see the similarities. Sovereign isn't even humanoid. What part of him exactly is supposed to be based off the Collectors? Why doesn't it look like the Human-reaper larvae where it had distinguishable bodyparts? Or am I missing something? 24.87.4.53 06:40, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Two things- first, it's theorized that each Reaper is based off the race that was assimilated to create it. It's not known for a fact that A) Reapers 'assimilate' races as a means of propagating or B) That if this is the case, they take on the appearance of that race. It's just a theory. And secondly, at no point is it suggested that Sovereign is based off of the Protheans or the Collectors. In fact, while she is theorizing that Reapers propagate through 'assimilation', she also theorizes that the Reapers were unable to do this with the Protheans, which is why they instead turned them into the Collectors. SpartHawg948 06:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Oh..Well now I feel silly.  :/ 24.87.4.53 14:27, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

As I believe it has been reflected in the actual article this is merely a updated reply to the initial entry of this talk section. We now know from the Catalyst/Leviathan DLC that each cycle they uplift/'preserve' (or try to if they failed with the Protheans, not speculating on whether or not they managed) into Reaper form like the human larvae of ME2, and I believe it was from a dev. interview/Bioware site post that explained that the outer shell, now know to be based on Harbinger and the Leviathan original species goes over the inner form. I'm sorry I don't know the Bioware site page, but I know it was there. 138.251.254.229 01:21, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

An Interesting Fact Of SortsEdit

This probably doesn't need to be in the article, but I'll at least mention it here. Last night, I was reading through my Star Trek Encyclopedia when I noticed something interesting: the largest class of ship in Starfleet is the Soveriegn-Class Starship. My encyclopedia also has a size comparison to various other Star Trek ships that shows that it may be roughly the same size as Soveriegn, though I'm not sure about this part. Arbington 15:08, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes however, we know Sovereign is 2 km in length while the USS Enterprise, the only Sovereign-Class vessel mentioned, is under one km in length. Actually it is mentioned in ST:FC , by Picard no less, that it is nearly 700 meters long, no where near the size of Sovereign. Even after the refit between Insurrection and Nemesis, the Enterprise was still under 800 meters in length. Sovereign is well over twice the length of the Sovereign-class Vessels used by Starfleet. Because of this, I have refrained from adding this trivia becuase of the size difference and becuse it is one of those name only comparisions. Lancer1289 15:29, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I just thought it was kind of interesting, though I didn't know exactly how long Soveriegn was. I thought to myself "If he can fit on top of the Citadel Tower, over a kilometer might be a little big." but it appears I was wrong. No big deal. I didn't think it should be in the article anyway, as even if they were the exact same size, there is still no confirmation that they are related in any way other then by name. Arbington 15:49, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed I think it is quite interesing as well becuase Sovereign is the largest vessel seen in the ME universe, and the Sovereign-class is one of the largest seen in ST. It is interesting but it is that comparison that is what really intreges me. Lancer1289 15:54, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
If it were added as trivia, I would, of course, demand that the Sovereign-class SSD also be mentioned. Unlike the puny little Star Trek Sovereign, which is less than half the length of the Reaper Sovereign, the Star Wars Sovereign is over 7 times larger than the Reaper! But yeah, this just helps demonstrate how common the name Sovereign is for ships in sci-fi, and why none of these comparisons are really trivia. Trivial, maybe, but not trivia... SpartHawg948 17:02, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed if we were to add the Enterprise, then we would have to add the Star Destroyer as well. Anyway the point I as trying to make with the Enterprise bit was that the Sovereign-class is the largest class of vessels in Starfleet and some of the largest seen in the Star Trek Universe. Sovereign is so far the largest vessel seen, apart from all of its friends that we see at the end of ME2, so that is the connection I was trying to make, but that is too trivial to mention. However if that was added the SSD would have to be added along with it becuase it is also one of the largest vessels in the Star Wars Universe. However the name is way to common in scifi to be trivia. Lancer1289 17:17, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
I always thought the Galaxy class was the largest class of vessel whereas Sovereign was the strongest. But yeah, I'm getting off topic. The name "Sovereign" is in way too many sci-fi series. That and the name John "Shepard". Freakium 17:25, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Random tidbit Edit

So, not saying this needs to go either in this article or the Commander Shepard article, but I noticed this when I was perusing wikiquotes. While conversing with Sovereign on Virmire, Shep has the option of telling Sovereign that 'you're just a machine, and machines can be broken.' Compare this to Soviet Field Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky's comment that 'The German Army is a machine, and machines can be broken! I doubt that anyone at BioWare was looking to paraphrase or reference a Marshal of the Soviet Union turned Polish Defense Minister, but I found the similarity interesting. SpartHawg948 01:35, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting indeed! Arbington 01:49, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Something Interesting Edit

I was taking a look at the artwork book for mass effect and i saw a picture of the design of sovereign. i noticed that his underside almost took the shape of a face? Maybe the face of some ancient race that sovereign was made from? maybe thats why it always seem that the species used to make the reaper never really look like the actual species. Just a thought 81.129.80.226 23:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Cthulu trivia Edit

So, this has become a bone of contention lately. As such, I'd like to reassess the merit of the Cthulu trivia item. Let's look at what it says, and examine it piece by piece. The item claims that Sovereign echoes Cthulu from the works of H. P. Lovecraft (as well as others), namely in terms of "the same appearance", presumed near-invincibility, the claim to be beyond human understanding, the capability of driving others mad with their presence, and a cult following. Now, let's take a look at these:

  • The "same appearance" claim - Demonstrably FALSE. We all know what Sovereign looks like. Cthulu's appearance is best demonstrated by the description of statues of the creature. The statues are of "a monster of vaguely anthropoid outline, but with an octopus-like head whose face was a mass of feelers, a scaly, rubbery-looking body, prodigious claws on hind and fore feet, and long, narrow wings behind." If they really had "the same appearance", Sovereign would have an octopus-like head (Sovereign is shaped more like a cuttlefish, which tend to be angular and pointed, rather than bulbous, like octopi), a "scaly, rubbery-looking body", hind and fore limbs with large claws, and wings. Sovereign has none of these. 0-1
  • Presumed near-invincibility. Demonstrably false. At no point is Sovereign presumed invincible. Extremely hard to destroy, yes. Invincible, no. Remember one of my favorite lines from the game? "You're not even alive… not really. You're just a machine, and machines can be broken." 0-2
  • Claiming to be beyond human understanding. Demonstrably false. The exact phrasing used in-article is that both "are stated to be beyond human understanding". This is imply not true in the case of Sovereign. Sovereign claims, and Vigil reinforces, that the motives of the Reapers are beyond the ability of organics to comprehend. Sovereign itself, and Reapers in general, are easily comprehensible by organics. 0-3
  • The capability to drive others mad with their presence. Demonstrably false. Sovereign uses Indoctrination. The point of this is not to drive others mad, but rather to make them malleable. We have seen one individual who has been driven close to madness while resisting the Indoctrination. One individual. 0-4
  • Cult following. True. Sovereign does have what could be described as a cult following, what with Saren, Benezia and her followers, and the geth heretics. 1-4.

So basically, of the "proof" cited for the trivia, 80% was bogus, and 20% was valid, but not especially unique of exceptional in and of itself. Simply having cult followings is hardly indicative of a link between the two. As such, I am of the opinion that the Cthulu blurb, being based almost entirely upon exaggerations and outright falsehoods, needs to be deleted. Other opinions would, of course, be welcome. SpartHawg948 23:55, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

  • The "same appearance" claim

The primary association people make with Cthulhu's appearance is the squid(squidface), true

  • Presumed near-invincibility

Cthulhu is only claimed invincible as well. Why would he need a spell of protection if he weren't? Importance is the claim of invulnderability

  • Claiming to be beyond human understanding

Cthulhu is not necessarily beyond it either. Not enough is known about him to say. Importance is the claim once again.

  • The capability to drive others mad with their presence

Trait of Cthulhu that he uses to influence the cult, and drive others mad. This trait is exhibited in the Derelict Reaper(which is both dead and not) as well, itself a separate reference to Cthulhu. -- 71.74.72.212 00:10, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

You're totally missing my point on a few of those:
  • First, the bit claims that Sovereign and Cthulu have the same appearance. The same appearance. Not that Sovereign looks like the one feature of Cthulu people think of the most.
  • Next - My point about invincibility is that no one thinks Sovereign is invincible. Not that Sovereign only claims to be invincible (which it doesn't). You missed my point entirely.
  • Beyond human understanding - again, this is a claim that no one makes of Sovereign. Not one person. They only claim Sovereign's motives are beyond understanding. I couldn't have been more clear.
  • Madness - The Derelict Reaper is irrelevant. This article is about Sovereign. The Derelict Reaper would be a valid point to make on the Reaper page, not the Sovereign page.
And there you go. SpartHawg948 00:15, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Point of the post was drawing relation between the two, not saying Sovereign is Cthulhu. Inspiration is not plagiarism.

Madness-Yet again, I point out both "Great Old Ones" and the Reapers can both influence and drive insane. This ability is literally an exact match, not an altered inspiration.

I am well aware of the point of the post. That is why I have dedicated this thread to demonstrating that this relation is by and large nonexistent. As for Madness, I point out yet again that Sovereign (and again, this article is about Sovereign, not about Reapers in general - I am 100% okay with the Cthulu blurb on the Reaper page) has only once been seen to drive someone to anything even resembling madness, and this was unintended. The intent had been to make the individual compliant, but he was resisting, which was causing extreme mental duress that was approaching madness, though the individual clearly wasn't mad, just extremely agitated. SpartHawg948 00:31, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Drawing an association between the Reapers and the Great Old Ones does strengthen the link between Sovereign and Cthulhu. Do whatever you want though, I'm off to try and explain evolution to the nearest creationist I can find. -- 71.74.72.212 00:40, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

But drawing links between the Reapers and the Great Old Ones is not appropriate content for an article about Sovereign. It's perfect for an article about Reapers, which is why I don't have a problem with the Cthulu item that is currently on the Reaper page. We're talking about Sovereign here, not all Reapers. The item contends that Sovereign itself, not Reapers in general, drives people mad with its presence, and this simply is not true. Making disingenuous points about the Reapers as a whole does nothing to change this. If you're going to argue for evolution in a manner similar to how you argued here, I may have to rethink my stance on the issue. SpartHawg948 00:45, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Told myself I wasn't going to come back but... it's Cthulhu! CthulHu! Dear lord, at least get that part right and this will be less frustrating. It's like someone saying their an expert on nuculer weapons or libaries -- Shoggoth1890 02:20, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

If nuculer or libaries were accepted alternate spellings of the word, your analogy would be correct. However, they are not. Cthulu, on the other hand, is one of many accepted alternate spellings of Cthulhu, though I will admit that Lovecraft himself spelled it Cthulhu. The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana [1] notes many acceptable alternate spellings, and Cthulu is among them. It's like Qaddafi. Or Khadafi. Or Gaddafi. Or any of the other myriad acceptable spellings of the Libyan ruler's name. Now, if there was nothing else besides that outburst... SpartHawg948 02:39, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

The same logic defines nuculer and libary as acceptable in colloquial speech, you have not invalidated my statement. Cthulu and Ktulu are colloquial bastardizations. I have finally realized that you are Cthulhu, intending to drive me insane in the form of a contrarian. -- Shoggoth1890 03:14, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Colloquialisms and accepted alternate spellings are two totally different things, my friend. We're talking apples and cauliflowers here. As for "[t]he same logic", I assume that by this you mean the definitive encyclopedia on all things Lovecraftian? As such, it is you who has failed to invalidate my statement. As for my being Cthulu, you do realize that I can only drive you insane so long as you keep this up of your own free will, don't you? SpartHawg948 03:32, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Seriously though people: Any other opinions? Anyone besides a certain user who, failing to disprove any of my arguments, has instead resorted to quibbling over spelling? Anyone? Maybe someone prepared to argue logically, based off what I actually said, instead of what they wish I'd said? (I tell you, too many people have been watching The Fog of War. Curse you, Robert McNamara!!!) SpartHawg948 03:37, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Christ guy, I've approached this trying to come to a consensus, and and you get tripped up by the words "old" and "one". Colloquialisms are considered acceptable alternates by some, but that doesn't make them official. Same applies to the spelling of the name. I have tried a point-counterpoint with you. If you are willing to give it an actual go and see where the roadblock started we can finally get back to the issues. -- Shoggoth1890 04:20, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'm game, but in the appropriate venue. This thread concerns the points I raised in my first post, and is strictly regarding the fate of the Cthulu trivia item in this article. Any attempts to "give it an actual go and see where the roadblock started" would be best accomplished on a user talk page. SpartHawg948 04:29, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

So, it's been a day (more or less) and there really hasn't been anything presented that has refuted the points I made above. As such, I'm going to go ahead and remove the item in question as unfounded. If anyone comes along with other opinions (either for or against removal), this thread will of course still be here, and I look forward (though not without a sense of trepidation) to continuing this discussion. SpartHawg948 21:53, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Update - as regards point #3 in my first post - after reviewing evidence, Sovereign itself does claim to be beyond the comprehension of Commander Shepard. However, it is my opinion (and that's all this is, my opinion) that a single megalomaniacal and disproven claim made by someone (or, dare I say, something? :P) about itself does not equate to its being "stated to be beyond human understanding", as the latter carries with it the connotation of fact. Or, at the very least, somewhat widely held belief, i.e. not a claim made by a melodramatic villain about itself. Given though that this is just my opinion, I will concede that maybe, just maybe, 2 of the 5 claims made in the bit I removed are true. so it's 2-3, bearing in mind that the two it does have are not uncommon among sci-fi baddies. SpartHawg948 04:54, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

The two that could be similarities, as you already pointed out, are not uncommon in scifi, or other forms of fiction for that matter. Given that it has already been removed, I will oppose its reinsertion given the reasons stated by Spart above in breaking down the trivia and proving that two, common, similarities exist out of five. If another trivia item was added with those similarities, I highly doubt it would be there for very long given our trivia standards. And last time I checked, 40% or 20% is still an "F" on the grading scale. Lancer1289 05:05, January 24, 2011 (UTC)
That is definitely true. That's probably why I hate those numbers so much... anything below a 90% and I'm seeing red. Stupid "Alternative and Renewable Energy Systems" and "Introduction to Pollution Prevention and Hazardous Waste", messing with my GPA! Well, back to the matter at hand, it's nice to get another opinion on this one, and I'm pretty sure you're right. Had this item been added more recently, it wouldn't have passed muster. I can think of at least four or five people who would have objected to it with the quickness. However, since it was added shortly after the page came into being, and well before the trivia guidelines were ironed out, it managed to sneak by under the radar for quite a while. It happens from time to time... SpartHawg948 05:28, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

infobox contains spoliers Edit

The infobox pic is of Sovereign battling the citadel fleet, but more concerning is that the only info below that is "Reaper" which is a blatant spoiler for the individual who's just picked up the game and come to look up Saren's ship. I know the Harbinger page doesn't try to hide his nature, but couldn't we keep this info below the spoiler tag? Arbiter099 04:29, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

I was just noticing that. Also, the quote will clue anyone who doesn't know Sovereign's true nature to the fact that something is up. --Lucius Voltaic 21:44, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

No other response? I think both the Sovereign and Harbinger pages could benefit from following the model of the Shadow Broker page, with a spoiler infobox at the bottom instead of blatant spoilers above the tag. I'd do it myself if I didn't want to make sure it was ok on top of the fact that I'd probably screw it up. Arbiter099 03:29, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Concur. If we leave the current info box where it is, we might as well just change the first line to "Sovereign is a Reaper." It's a major spoiler that's right there at the top of the page with no warning whatsoever. SpartHawg948 19:19, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Parts of Sovereign were used to create EDI Edit

Where was this from? I don't recall ever hearing about this in-game...haven't read the comics or novels though, maybe I missed it. Also, creepy much? Foreshadowing much? I have a horrible feeling about this and Mass Effect 3. And the 'crazy AI' seems to be a popular villain in gaming (then again, we already had Project Overlord, and Bioware may wish to avoid that much-trodden path of the crazy AI). --175.38.241.123 11:37, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

As to your first part, it is stated after the Collector Ship (mission). As to your second part, that belongs in a forum or blog post, not here. Lancer1289 17:16, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Destruction Edit

How was it even possible to defeat him in the first place? He goes from taking not even a scratch from ramming an Alliance ship and direct fire of the entire Alliance fleet to falling of the antennae and suddenly taking damage? 217.225.59.184 03:26, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think an in-universe explanation has been provided. According to the Prima ME guidebook, however, Sovereign linked its mind to the Saren Husk/cyborg for the final battle. When Shepard destroys the Saren Husk, Sovereign is stunned and drops its shields, leaving it vulnerable to attack. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:36, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Indoctrinated Rachni Queens Edit

Can someone please provide a reference to the line "It is also implied that Sovereign (or another Reaper operating under the same objectives) was responsible for indoctrinating the rachni queens"? I don't remember that being mentioned in ME2, though I may have just forgotten it, but it seems too significant to not have some kind of specific reference or at least a mention of where or from whom it is implied that this occurred. -- 77.101.25.130 14:21, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

It's stated (or at least very heavily implied) when Shepard meets with asari messenger when first arriving on Illium in ME2. The messenger says something along the lines of "Your enemies are the rachni's enemies" and that something "soured" the rachni's songs. Shepard asks if it was the Reapers that did that to which the messenger confirms. TheUnknown285 (talk) 14:47, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly. There's 2 theroies both unproven. Either A: The Reapers did it, or B: The Leviathans did it.
Listen to that quote again. Lancer1289 (talk) 16:23, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
For your viewing pleasure, here is the conversation with the asari on Illium. TheUnknown285 (talk) 17:03, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

The theory of the Leviathan's involvement is made by Dr. Bryson in the notes/clues around his lab, and are plausibly a false hypothesis. Additionally, the Rachni's point of view is not entirely free of bias; no one in game, nor even the codes wholly is, it's what the character believes. That said, the fate in ME3 and the possible explanation of Indoctrination, being EM and ME field manipulation on the brain, as well as actual sound, inaudible or otherwise, with the natural QEC theory of Rachni 'telepathy' and Leviathan control heavily suggests it is either of these, as has been said. Either are possible, since indoctrination is the technological emulation of the theorized organic temporary Leviathan QEC effect. Happening 2000 years ago, either Sovereign knew then that the signal failed and triggered the wars as a distraction or to weaken the Council races for it's purposes. 2/50 is a small uncertainty and he know that it is not precisely 50000 on the dot. Similarly though, Leviathan may have used them to draw of pursuers. Desponia is on the other side of the Rachni relay, spatially even if not directly along the relay paths. Perhaps it was Leviathan and the Queen, after learning of the nature, even if not the technical details, assumes it was Reaper influence. So its not cut and dried, but highly likely either of the two, since their ability is linked and essential, though not exactly, equatable. After listening to the quote, she says 'seek' not 'fight'. How she knew we would seek Leviathan if the quote implies that is unknown. 138.251.254.229 01:46, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Nazara as a species name? Edit

I had a random thought: it's possible that "Nazara" is the species that was used to create Sovereign. As the Reapers are a sort of collective consciousness, if it were to identify itself by any name, wouldn't it make sense that it identify itself by the name the species called themselves? (e.g. the human-Reaper might have referred to itself as "Human", since that is who/what it is made of). And since Harbinger never explicitly refers to itself as "Harbinger" (closest he comes is "I am the harbinger of your destruction), Harbinger may actually be named "Leviathan" or something of that sort (since "Leviathan" seems to be the 2180s name for the species, not their own name).

Just a random thought. Wasn't sure if it was Trivia section worthy or just a crackpot theory. --WTRiker (talk) 05:54, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

What little is known about name Nazara suggests that the name describes the role of an individual Reaper rather than the species used to create it; what the Human-Reaper would have called itself, had it been completed, is pure speculation. In any case, not one Reaper is known to call itself by the name of any known species, so I'm afraid this has nothing to do with fact and therefore doesn't belong in the trivia section. Elseweyr (talk) 08:53, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Assumed as such. But an interesting theory, no? --WTRiker (talk) 06:23, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

creation Edit

The leviathans are the species that created the reapers to bring order to organic and non-organic life. The reapers' solution was to destroy organics in a cycle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.255.147.74 (talk · contr).

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.