Forum:The possibility of reversing the flood back to there original precusor state

From Halopedia, the Halo wiki

Forums: Index General Discussion The possibility of reversing the flood back to there original precusor state
Forumheader-image.png

Would it be theoritically possible rather destroying the flood as they are precusor but a corrupted form that they may some how be able to be reversed back into the original forms of precusors and become the good guys again :/—This unsigned comment was made by Spartan Matt (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Firstly, you're assuming there aren't still original Precursors out there, biding their time. You're also assuming the Precursors were "good guys" in the first place. Everything we've seen of them (from the admittedly possibly biased Forerunner perspective) seems to show them as amoral geneticists who uplift species and then slap them down again when they fail to meet their arcane criteria. And even the Flood's agenda is an extension of the Precursors' ultimate motive - eradicating the Forerunners as a species for failing to live up to the Mantle. -- Qura 'Mo rhek The Autocrat of Morheka 19:26, 28 August 2014 (EDT)
The Forerunner view is totally biased. The Precursors favored the Humans, and the Forerunners got made. The Forerunners created the original flood dust (accidentally). The Mantle was not something Forerunners had to live up to because it wasn't theirs. The Forerunners attacked Humanity for being chosen and turned the Milky way into a bomb to undo ALL precursor work.—This unsigned comment was made by Sallan (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
The Forerunners pushed the Precursors to desperation, yes, but it's a bit much to blame them for the Flood. The Flood was part of the Precursors revenge plan against the Forerunners. And as for the Precursor's benevolence, there's always been a distinctly colonialist and sinister about technological uplift or a galactic mandate, whether it's Forerunner or Precursor. -- Qura 'Morhek The Autocrat of Morheka 21:24, 31 August 2014 (EDT)
The Precursors don't necessarily have a "true form". It's explained quite explicitly that they aren't a single species and are more of an idea. They're an "informational race"; an intergalactic intelligence, and they are united by their technology and connected consciousness rather than by physical forms. They may have once been a single species LONG ago, but I find it more likely that they started as a conglomeration of different species (much like the Covenant) who grew and grew, gathering more species, until they achieved such technological prowess that they shed their physical forms and united in thought, which is stored in their various relics and accessed via the Domain. Since it's stated that "The Precursors lived in many shapes, flesh and spirit, primitive and advanced, spacefaring and locked to their worlds ... Evolved over and over again, died away, were reborn, explored, and seeded many galaxies ...", every single species that the Precursors influenced and guided may be considered Precursor in this sense (so Humanity, Forerunners, and possibly every intelligent species in the Milky Way, would be included).--FluffyEmoPenguin(ice quack!) 14:23, 27 September 2014 (EDT)

Like the Forerunners and post-war era humanity (at least the UEG), the Precursors were purists even before they became the Flood. If a race was imperfect, it was discarded. The Primordial-Gravemind also made it clear in Silentium that the goals of the Precursors are ever-shifting and changing, but their endgame has always been forced unity of all life through one means or another. While we know little of the goals of the Precursors, it does appear that they view diversity as the cause of division and war, death and destruction, and whether by throwing them into a melting pot under the absolute rule of one species or by assimilating them into the Flood - is not the answer. The former failed for both the Forerunners and the San'Shyuum and there is no reason to believe it will work for humanity. I don't think I need to explain why the latter is not the answer. --Infernal Keeper (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2015 (EDT)