The brother hood of Steel in FO3

[Texas Renegade]

Ok, here we go. 1st off this is a purely hypothetical thread on the evolution fo BoS from FO2 to the group in FO3.

Ok, the BoS in FO1 pretty much started as a we could give a hoot about everyone else withdrawn from society almost technology cultish. At the end of FO1 this softens somewhat when they go out and help eliminate the remains of the Master's army. Which one could argue as a dissorganized rable, posed little to no threat to the BoS, so this could be seen as a altruistic act.

Now, in FO2, the BoS isn't too terribly involved in any one event. They are a largely fringe element that isn't figured into the game terribly much.

Ok, the story goes in FO3, they were sent east to search for lost technology in the ruins of the DC area, specifically the Pentagon.

They arrive at the pentagon, begin scouring for technology, setup a base to protect themselves, and maintane contact with the base of power in California.

Now, over time splits begin to form within the group in DC.

This can logically be traced to several factors. 1 being what would have to be a large group of younger more idealistic members who did not grow up within the sheltered confines of the secluded reclusive BoS bases. Combined with being routinely presented with the obvious ways the DC area could benefit from their assistance, some of the older members, including their leader, could be affected by this and have their priorities changed.

Now, resulting from this change in priorities, a break froms between the DC group and the home base in California. Also, resulting from this, the group actually splits apart taking many of the older experienced members and their "clerics" (sorry I want to say that is what the techie guys are called but can't remember) and most of their high end technology off into a splenter group that continous with the BoS's original function and purpose.


Ok, I know this isn't gonna be the way many of you would like the BoS to function in FO3, but can you not concede the notion that it would not be a hard to fathom evolution of the group in a different areas. The "hard liner conservatives" were out numbered by the "young liberals" resulting in a change and eventually a break in the group.

The BoS in california still funtions the same as it did previously and there is still a group in DC continuing their original mission.

It has happened before in both fiction and history, it is an entirely concievable path for the story to develope along in FO3.

Just a question, please present desenting opinions.

 

[Brother None]

Well, let me twist the question around: say the existence of the Brotherhood of Steal as they are in Fallout 3 is feasible, does that mean by definition that their changed attitude fits the Fallout setting well?

 

[Texas Renegade]

That would be hard to say. Previous Fallout games have given us little in regard to evolution of the people in the wasteland I believe except for the creation of the NCR.

Now, on that basis, the NCR is dynamically different from what it started as in FO2.

As far as it becoming benevolent....hard to say, you have examples of both:

VC, New Reno, The Den--all very much look out for yourself first, to different degrees.

Broken Hills, Gecko: Much more along the lines of helping each other out.

Also, there have been, very limited I mind you, examples of the BoS serving the greater good.

It is a hard call, and ultimately a decision I may not end up agreeing with, however, I do see how it could work.

 

[Brother None]

Now, on that basis, the NCR is dynamically different from what it started as in FO2.

NCR didn't exist in Fallout 1; as an organisation it is not directly comparable to Shady Sands.

That said, you're taking this the wrong route, trying to find excuses in Fallout 2, even though there is a consensus amongst fans that Fallout 2 was taking the wrong route, a consensus adopted by both the Van Buren developers and the current Fallout 3 developers.

So no, try again: the BoS as an organisation underlined Fallout's dark ironic tone by being a bunch of xenophobic, self-centered assholes who cared about technology above all else. How does the BoS turning into a bunch of do-gooders not damage the Fallout setting?

 

[Ausir]

{124}{}{Ultimately we have a command heirarchy, with the Elders at the top. The
most influential positions, then, are the Elders and the High Elder. A charismatic
High Elder could direct the Brotherhood almost completely. We need to be careful
to make sure that we have a leader who is both strong and visionary. Thankfully,
I think that General Maxson fits that description.}

Due to Brotherhood's hierarchical structure, all it takes is the man at the top to change his mind and the rest will follow.

 

[Texas Renegade]

Well, wether you agree with the direction FO2 went or not, you cannot discount it in the FO universe.

I really don't know much about VB other then what I have read so I can't comment on the direction it went.

However, my biggest thing with basing it soley off the way they were in FO1, is that I don't consider FO to be static.

Groups evolve. They change. Again, I would argue that the BoS would be dramatically different from their origins on the west coast for a great number of reasons. However, the primary reason would be that they spent a great deal of time outside of their Compound existence. They were very much in and of the world rather then largely apart from it as was the case in FO1.

If they would eradicate the SM threat at the end of FO1, why would they not similarly feel compelled to deal with the threat of the SM in FO3?

Especially if the hardliners have splintered off. Removing the strongest voice to continue being the xenophobic, self centered assholes who care only about technology. That in and of itself would give the change even more strength.

So, at this moment, considering the role would still be filled by a fairly large group, and with fitting with patterns of social behavior within the history of human existence, I can very much see it both happening, and not damaging the setting.

The recruitment of new members would be a logical step considering the need for more soldiers, especially following the split.

The split would be the biggest problem I would have, considering I would not expect the hardliners to abandon the group as they did. However it still appears on the outside to work.

 

[Ausir]

If they would eradicate the SM threat at the end of FO1, why would they not similarly feel compelled to deal with the threat of the SM in FO3?

But they didn't eradicate the threat in FO1.

 

[Brother None]

Groups evolve. They change.

You're completely ignoring my point.

My problem is not that the BoS changes, they changed in Van Buren too into a hardline, war-faring, power-mongering faction.

My problem is that the changed BoS does not fit the themes of Fallout, even more than NCR did not fit the themes of Fallout.

A change in a faction does not simply have to be logically possible to be ok, it also has to fit the game's theme. The new BoS does not.

Also:

If they would eradicate the SM threat at the end of FO1, why would they not similarly feel compelled to deal with the threat of the SM in FO3?

They never eradicated the SM threat. They ignored it until it was dispersed and then helped some people handling the remains (probably in trade for goods, knowing the BoS)

 

[Jim Cojones]

Maxson, Fallout: "Our main goal is to survive. The Scribes copy old plans for weapons or design new ones, and the Knights make the guns from 'em. Most guns come from us."
VD: "That's all you do?"
M:"All? It's damn important. It's critical to our survival."

Mathew, Fallout 2: "The Brotherhood of Steel is not the power that we once were."

Emil Pagliarulo: "Elder Lyons and his brave Knights and Paladins changed all that. For the first time, the Super Mutant tide was stemmed."

No comments.

 

[Brother None]

When Emil wrote about the BoS protecting "the area’s innocents" I seriously did a spit-take?

Seriously, innocents? In Fallout? Nice going missing the whole point of the setting there.

 

[Shadoweangel]

Alrighty, I tend to lurk a fair bit on the NMA forums but I feel like this is a good post to get involved in, so here goes.

I can understand what the majority of the skeptics think of the changes made to the BoS, and I can agree with a lot of them. In the current setting though there aren't just logical reasons for the newly adopted doctrine of the Brotherhood, it strikes me as an interesting take on the original spirit of fallout.

I'm going to make a couple assumptions here, so forgive me my optomistic outtake on the first two games.

Assuming that by the end of the first game the best events possible came of the Vault Dweller's journey more than a few people may have been influenced by his heroic actions. Judging from the situation of the NCR in Fallout 2 there was hope for a better future. Not just scrabbling for existance in a dirt farm, fearing raiders, slavers, and mutant bears (oh my!). I'm not saying there weren't or prostitutes or even a general feeling of distrust and helplessness. There have always been some horrible examples of human beings involved in the Fallout series, and it's part of what makes the Post-Apoc. setting great. But in the end, I think the message of fallout was, at least in part, one of hope. While the majority of the factions are doing it for the money, or the power there's always someone out there ( altohugh slightly misguided and morally adrift, in the case of the Enclave) saying "We can rebuild, and we can do it better this time!".

If a splinter group of the BoS were to be influenced by these ideals
and broke off from the main faction, it would fit the Fo3 concept almost perfectly.
Several groups of knights in the early 12th Century were so intruiged by the story of King Arthur that they gave up (however briefly) stabbing each other in the back and spitting in public to adhere to the proper 'Knightly Code'. I see this splinter faction in the BoS as having a similar background.

Seriously, innocents? In Fallout? Nice going missing the whole point of the setting there.

As for there being no innocents in the Fallout series, that strikes me as little off. I mean, the villagers of Shady Sands were to a certain extent innocent. The Inhabitants of Junk Town and the Hub were doing what they could to get by. The majority of the 'insert description here' characters were for the most part innocent. They did what they had to to live, despite being preyed upon by raiders and the other less reputable remnants of humanity. I even felt a lot of compassion and pity for the drug addicts and prostitutes that roamed the streets of New Reno.
But there was hope, and in the end I think that was as much the spirit of Fallout as anything else.

 

[Sander]

If you think that they were innocents (note: innocents is not the same as people with good intentions (which most of them weren't either)) then you've really missed the point of Fallout.

Hope certainly wasn't the spirit of Fallout.

 

[Skynet 2.0]

While the majority of the factions are doing it for the money, or the power there's always someone out there ( altohugh slightly misguided and morally adrift, in the case of the Enclave) saying "We can rebuild, and we can do it better this time!".

If a splinter group of the BoS were to be influenced by these ideals
and broke off from the main faction, it would fit the Fo3 concept almost perfectly.

Yes, it might have fit into Fallout canon, but why would they be doing it now, almost 300 years after the events of the original Fallout? By this point, all of the people who had met with the Vault Dweller would be dead. Anyway, I don't think you ever did that much for the Brotherhood. You just got a holotape from the Glow for them, then stole one of their suits of power armor.

 

[Shadoweangel]

If you think that they were innocents (note: innocents is not the same as people with good intentions (which most of them weren't either)) then you've really missed the point of Fallout.

Hope certainly wasn't the spirit of Fallout.

So what you're saying is that there hasn't been any example of altruistic behavior at any point throughout the Fallout series? Sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth, but that seems to be the stance you're taking.
I'll admit that innocent may not be the best choice of words, if you want to play semantics, but one of the key definitions of the word is "Harmless in intent or effect".

I suppose I may have been a little uncouth when I said hope was the spirit of Fallout. It may not be the focal point of the storyline, but I do think it figures heavily into the series. It isn't always particularly effective, or even helpful, but it is there.
I suppose I just tend to enjoy playing the Guardian of the WAstes style a little too much *sheepish grin*

In the end one of the greatest things about rpg's is that they allow you to interpret things in a multitude of different ways.

As for the how the protagonists actions may or may not have affected the Brotherhood, some of the things they did were rather remarkable. I doubt that no-one in the brotherhood would have taken note of them. Sometimes small actions can have far reaching consequences.

 

[Sander]

So what you're saying is that there hasn't been any example of altruistic behavior at any point throughout the Fallout series? Sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth, but that seems to be the stance you're taking.

Ehm, no, it isn't. I am not saying that there is a complete lack of altruism, I'm saying that altruism is both extremely uncommon (actually, throughout both games the only altruists you'll encounter would be Mom in Klamath, the doctor in Redding and in some respects Harold) and unfitting in a dog-eat-dog world like Fallout's.

I'll admit that innocent may not be the best choice of words, if you want to play semantics, but one of the key definitions of the word is "Harmless in intent or effect".

Harmless isn't a word you could use to describe anyone but children in Fallout.

I suppose I may have been a little uncouth when I said hope was the spirit of Fallout. It may not be the focal point of the storyline, but I do think it figures heavily into the series. It isn't always particularly effective, or even helpful, but it is there.
I suppose I just tend to enjoy playing the Guardian of the WAstes style a little too much *sheepish grin*

Hope doesn't figure heavily into the game at all. In fact, hopelessness would be more appropriate. Fallout is a bleak and grim world where things go wrong, a lot.

Hell, originally, killing Killian of Junktown would've triggered a neverending. The Vault Dweller gets kicked out of his home after saving the world. The Master has an ultimate plan to save the human race, but ends up almost destroying it.
That's the core of Fallout, not 'it's going to be alright'.

 

[Ausir]

actually, throughout both games the only altruists you'll encounter would be Mom in Klamath, the doctor in Redding and in some respects Harold

I'd say that the Followers of Apocalypse were pretty altruistic.

 

[Sander]

actually, throughout both games the only altruists you'll encounter would be Mom in Klamath, the doctor in Redding and in some respects Harold

I'd say that the Followers of Apocalypse were pretty altruistic.

Trying to kill off the Children of the Cathedral isn't the epitome of altruism, but yeah, they're the only organisation that comes close to altruism.
Then again, they always got killed at the end of Fallout (yes, it's a bug, I know).

Although, come to think of it, most doctors throughout Fallout 2 are reasonably altruistic.

 

[Ausir]

The Master was the biggest altruist in any Fallout.

 

[Jim Cojones]

The Master was the biggest altruist in any Fallout.

Isn't this the best argument that there is no real place for altruism in Fallout world? I mean, he's definitely a tragic hero. All his actions bring harm and there is no future for Unity. He almost destroyed all remaining civilization instead of rescuing it.

 

[Shadoweangel]

Sorry it took me so long to get back on here.
Computer problems and all that jazz =/

Hope doesn't figure heavily into the game at all. In fact, hopelessness would be more appropriate. Fallout is a bleak and grim world where things go wrong, a lot.

i'd have to agree that failure and ultimately acceptance of the bleak future of humanity is important, and central to the theme of Fallout, but given that fact I just don't see that hope doesn't factor in as well.
I mean, without hope, nobody would bother pushing on (in fact quite a few people don't), which is why I view the actions of the protagonists bringing hope to some of the children of the wastes who've given up on improvement.
Hope can be misplaced, such as in the Masters place.
Altruism can be negative if it's coming from someone with a limited view of the whole picture, or from fanatics and tyrants, which I think adequately explains both the Master and the Enclave's situations, respectively.
I suppose that's just my interpretation though, I honestly can't see that one exists without the other. *shrugs*

Harmless isn't a word you could use to describe anyone but children in Fallout.

Keep in mind that when I said harmless it was part of a sentence. It twists the meaning if taken alone, and I certainly think that almost everyone in fallout can be dangerous given the right circumstances. "Harmless in intention" is the way I meant it to be viewed, and while rare in the series there are quite a few people that were just minding their own business, and even a few that were willing to help you on your journey; They may not have offered information or supplies for free, but they were willing to help.