Prone Squanderer
A bit of a Sillius Soddus.
One Super Mutant is enough to hold them off from attacking Westside. In fact IIRC Motor Runner tells you they took over Vault 3 because Meansonofabitch kept killing them.
Which minor faction(s) would you make a major one?
- Thread starter NMLevesque
- Start date
One Super Mutant is enough to hold them off from attacking Westside. In fact IIRC Motor Runner tells you they took over Vault 3 because Meansonofabitch kept killing them.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
I'm reminded of the defenses of the Galactic Empire which act like they're not a bunch of incompetent jackbooted fascists who can't find their own tail between their legs. Basically, yeah, the Raiders in the Mojave Desert could destroy the other factions and burn them to the ground.
1. NCR is demoralized, scattered, broken, and losing to the Fiends next door to themselves.
2. House can only defend New Vegas.
3. Caesar's Legion is going to bang itself against NCR and lose badly.
The problem with the argument is also that the Raiders don't have to BEAT any of the armies in order to win in a Raider AllianceTM.
All they have to do is:
1. Have the Courier not help the other factions.
2. Have the Courier kill House.
3. Have the Courier sabotage Hoover Dam.
In this hypothetical scenario, NCR can defeat Caesar's Legion and the Dam will no longer be there to justify their presence. The group can then pick off any survivors they want in the retreat and or attack their outposts. Then it's a kingdom to rampage over until they can move onto the next one.
As I've said in other threads, the natural state of the wasteland is chaos and freedom. It's why any attempt to rebuild is doomed and should be stopped.
1. NCR is demoralized, scattered, broken, and losing to the Fiends next door to themselves.
2. House can only defend New Vegas.
3. Caesar's Legion is going to bang itself against NCR and lose badly.
The problem with the argument is also that the Raiders don't have to BEAT any of the armies in order to win in a Raider AllianceTM.
All they have to do is:
1. Have the Courier not help the other factions.
2. Have the Courier kill House.
3. Have the Courier sabotage Hoover Dam.
In this hypothetical scenario, NCR can defeat Caesar's Legion and the Dam will no longer be there to justify their presence. The group can then pick off any survivors they want in the retreat and or attack their outposts. Then it's a kingdom to rampage over until they can move onto the next one.
As I've said in other threads, the natural state of the wasteland is chaos and freedom. It's why any attempt to rebuild is doomed and should be stopped.
Oh for fu-
Yes, they can beat them, potentially.
But whom will the raiders then raid?
Oh, they will move on to the next? Then what was the point of the first GLORIOUS ANARCHY KINGDOM (even as an english major you should recognize the oxymoron there, btw)? It can't be full anarchy, like you don't slaughter all your cattle at once, because THAT WOULD BE FUCKING STUPID. Raiders can't exist without an ordered society.
And if you go into ANOTHER paragraph about how the raiders can beat them and how anarchy is the natural order instead of answering why the raiders would willingly destroy their own means of survival (raiders gonna raid, after all) I will, in fact, come to the US and beat you death with a pair of reading glasses.
No, seriously.
Write another goddamn post about how the raiders can actually cause massive anarchy throughout the wasteland instead of answering the question of "WHY WOULD THEY DESTROY THEIR OWN WAY OF LIFE" and I will... Probably not ban you. But I will write an even angrier post that will contain a lot of personal insults at you, your extended family, your writing and general cognitive abilities, your sexual orientation, and your physical attributes.
I dare you. I double dare you, motherfucker.
You sometimes make it really hard to like you, even though you're totally a loveable goofball.
Yes, they can beat them, potentially.
But whom will the raiders then raid?
Oh, they will move on to the next? Then what was the point of the first GLORIOUS ANARCHY KINGDOM (even as an english major you should recognize the oxymoron there, btw)? It can't be full anarchy, like you don't slaughter all your cattle at once, because THAT WOULD BE FUCKING STUPID. Raiders can't exist without an ordered society.
And if you go into ANOTHER paragraph about how the raiders can beat them and how anarchy is the natural order instead of answering why the raiders would willingly destroy their own means of survival (raiders gonna raid, after all) I will, in fact, come to the US and beat you death with a pair of reading glasses.
No, seriously.
Write another goddamn post about how the raiders can actually cause massive anarchy throughout the wasteland instead of answering the question of "WHY WOULD THEY DESTROY THEIR OWN WAY OF LIFE" and I will... Probably not ban you. But I will write an even angrier post that will contain a lot of personal insults at you, your extended family, your writing and general cognitive abilities, your sexual orientation, and your physical attributes.
I dare you. I double dare you, motherfucker.
You sometimes make it really hard to like you, even though you're totally a loveable goofball.
Prone Squanderer
A bit of a Sillius Soddus.
Unorthodox Outlander
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Soo... you just want to doom all of humanity and civilization? You sound nuttier than Ulysses.
@CT Phipps No offense, but why are you stumping so hard for this? The natural state of human society isn't social entropy. We're communal creatures and we're too curious and too desirous of security not to build and grow. You argue that the natural state of (wasteland?) societies is to moulder and fail, which is arguably true, but the corollary you draw out is a bit like (well, exactly like) arguing that they should all just be killing their children at birth (and themselves, for that matter) because they're destined to die and there's no use fighting it.
The Fiends are not a political entity. They have no goals or ambitions beyond basal self-gratification. The only reason they haven't already been wiped out is that other people are supplying them with drugs and advanced weaponry to keep them a problem for the NCR. Even with Vault 3 for protection, it probably wouldn't take more than Mean Sonuvabitch or a couple squads of NCR conscripts to rout them without their energy weapons and/or a steady supply of combat chems, and it bears noting that even in the endgame slides that have the best possible outcome for the fiends they do no better than continue to be a scourge around the edges of Vegas. They are too inconsistent and unpredictable for anyone to ally with, and most of them are literally too fucked up to care if they live or die. They can't be directed. They can't be relied on. They can't even be trusted not to turn on you.
The Khans and the Powders are potentially compatible (as per the fact you can unite them in game), but neither of them have the kind of numbers for what you're proposing let alone the completely irrational desire. Look at how the Khans operated before the NCR and House spoiled their fun in the Mojave -- they had the run of the place and could have lived exactly as you propose if they had any desire to, but they didn't-- even Khans are better than that, and they knew better than that.
To top it off the Khans do not like the Fiends or want them anywhere near them-- they make money off of them, and it tickles some of the Khan old guard that they're a problem for the NCR. With the NCR gone, who would they be a problem for? Whoever's left. When you're so permanently screwed up in the head that your self control and sense of reality are lost to you, you don't stop being chaotic evil murderers and rapists just because you've suddenly got neutral evil neighbors.
The Fiends are not a political entity. They have no goals or ambitions beyond basal self-gratification. The only reason they haven't already been wiped out is that other people are supplying them with drugs and advanced weaponry to keep them a problem for the NCR. Even with Vault 3 for protection, it probably wouldn't take more than Mean Sonuvabitch or a couple squads of NCR conscripts to rout them without their energy weapons and/or a steady supply of combat chems, and it bears noting that even in the endgame slides that have the best possible outcome for the fiends they do no better than continue to be a scourge around the edges of Vegas. They are too inconsistent and unpredictable for anyone to ally with, and most of them are literally too fucked up to care if they live or die. They can't be directed. They can't be relied on. They can't even be trusted not to turn on you.
The Khans and the Powders are potentially compatible (as per the fact you can unite them in game), but neither of them have the kind of numbers for what you're proposing let alone the completely irrational desire. Look at how the Khans operated before the NCR and House spoiled their fun in the Mojave -- they had the run of the place and could have lived exactly as you propose if they had any desire to, but they didn't-- even Khans are better than that, and they knew better than that.
To top it off the Khans do not like the Fiends or want them anywhere near them-- they make money off of them, and it tickles some of the Khan old guard that they're a problem for the NCR. With the NCR gone, who would they be a problem for? Whoever's left. When you're so permanently screwed up in the head that your self control and sense of reality are lost to you, you don't stop being chaotic evil murderers and rapists just because you've suddenly got neutral evil neighbors.
CerberusGate
I should save my game in a whole new slot
You do realise that the only reason that the NCR is having trouble with the Fiends & the Gangers is primarily due to the resources being directed away from NCR infrastructure in New Vegas towards the Dam right? In any normal situation, the NCR could fix their problems with the Fiends and the Gangers quicker than you could say Bitter Springs. As for the Khans, not everyone in the Khans want to fight the NCR and are in fact trying to keep away from conflict with the NCR on account of Bitter Springs still being fresh in their mind.
As for House, his Securitrons are still dangerous even in their Mk 1 states. If the robots could tame several tribes and convert them into the Three Families, there's no way to say that Mr House can't tame yet another group of hostile locals. The Khans and Gangers aren't so intelligent or lucky enough to counter whatever House can dish at them if they become a threat to his New Vegas (I imagine being a group of raiders harming potential revenue to New Vegas without wasting the limited resources of your rival faction would catch his attention).
In addition, the Legion would easily wipe out the raider faction you've been proposing. The Frumentarii would easily slip into their ranks and dismantle them from within. In fact, I imagine they'd be easy to manipulate (save for the Fiends who'd probably be tricked into being shock troopers for the Legion at best). Look at Karl, he's clearly manipulating Papa Khan into making an alliance with the Legion and would have succeeded if not for player intervention.
In other words, no. A raider faction would fail, 9/10 times. It would take direct player intervention and a lot of contrived writing to make it successful.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Well, the obvious answer is:
1. Because the Powder Gangers will be killed if NCR is there or Caesar's Legion. Both hate Raiders.
2. The Great Khans will be destroyed because NCR hates them and Caesar's Legion has no use for raiders
3. Because Mr. House will do the same to them as well.
4. Because NCR is trying to wipe out the Fiends already.
Raiders don't depend on NCR or the Legion.
They depend on the villagers who they can raid indefinitely. A strong government is not good for gangs of outlaws.
As for WHY I would want them to do this.
Because Raidtopia and Chaos is an AWESOME ending and a great contrast to the eye-rolling "rebuild everything" ones.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
Actually, Chris Avellone is the guy who had the opinion that Fallout was best done as society enver actually rebuilding and he's an authority which qualifies far better than most of Bethesda's types. It's why Van Buren and Lonesome Road had the option of re-bombing humanity back to the Stone Age.
On a serious note, though, there's a kind of weird sense to the game that the Courier wants the spread of civilization and I think that's one of New Vegas' serious flaws. Take Red Dead Redemption and the fact the Wild West is dying due to the encroach of civilization. It destroys the Native population and their culture in order to bring about a corrupt and foul regime which is the Grand Theft Auto version of the USA.
Part of why I am beating the drum of "Anarchy in the Mojave" is because I was introduced into Fallout by Fallout 2 and I have always been fond of Sulik as well as the general sense the NCR wasn't a great bunch of guys. Independent groups like Vault city and city-states are the "good" ending while keeping the country divided with tribals free to do what they want versus a strong federal NCR is the best way.
But that's obviously not why I support a Raider ending. I support a Raider ending as the Dark Side of the Independent ending because I like the idea of simply rejecting the idea of greater civilizing forces. That the end of the day, the Courier gives a shit about Caesar's dream of an Empire and that he gets a machete to the head by a Lord Humungous type. There's a great moment in game where you can kill House and destroy all of his ambitions. "Because I don't like you."
It's an empowering moment that you can simply burn all these plans and benefit yourself and yourself alone because RAIDERS are awesome.
We need the Gauls/Vandals/Visigoths sack Rome ending.
NMLevesque
Commie Ghost
Yeah, I just have a hard time believing they couldn't put robots to good use. They have at least two experts (what's her name that upgrade ED-E), and are specifically interested in House's tech which specifically revolves around robotics. Pretty sure he's a cyborg and that's also medical in nature, so yeah. Robotics isn't un-medical, especially considering auto-docs.
I don't think we can say what her only motivations were, considering that she'd have to already be an expert just to attempt it. All I'm saying is that if your faction has robotics experts, which mod robots and actively engages in R&D (ED-E upgrade), then it's not really out of character for them to potentially use them. They also hire security guards so why not just use robots as security guards? Then they don't have to use medicine on injured guards. It's a win a win medically speaking.
But then it wouldn't be a Followers ending or the Followers becoming a major faction. It would be a single "rogue" Follower doing it.
That seems like semantics to me. How they keep the peace is one component of how they 'run things'. Bearing in mind that their idea for society would probably be fairly fluid/open. I imagine becoming a major faction would entail some degree of evolution, bedgrudging as it may be once the ball gets rolling (unintended consequences, logical faction-development/progression).
And yet, there is not even one robot they use for anything. While we can't say that the Followers use or not robots, we can see ingame that they at least do not use any in the entire Mojave sector.
But the Followers do not "keep peace" and have no intention of doing it. Like I mentioned before, they are like an unorganized Red Cross, they are not like the UN.
It's like you want peaceful doctors and teachers to become police officers.
They are pacifists, that just want to teach humanity skills on how to improve their lives, and who don't believe in governments, hierarchies or borders. They left the NCR because they didn't like how militarized and expansionist it was becoming, why would they became a militarized faction themselves?
If you change that, they stop being the Followers of the Apocalypse and become a new faction.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
But the Gauls, Vandals and Visigoths went back and created their own kingdoms that would become some of the modern nations. The Visigoths Spain, the Gauls France and part of the former, the Vandals the had-been Carthage. And again; it's not like they did it by themselves, Rome was at its very weakest. To consider that is about a hundred times more strategizing than the Raiders do.
Unless the villagers of Bumfuck USA happen to own a fucking Dyson Sphere, that's simply not the case. In a subsistance economy such is the Wasteland's (except for maybe core NCR), shit WILL run out especially if the production is not enough for the people it's supposed to maintain, at probably an unsafe ratio, which is the case if a horde of raiders keeps raidin' your radishes. Same for almost any resource, people included, which is another commodity your loved Raiders tend to like, either pussy or boys to rowdy up.
But even considering that a horde of dirty junkie rapists and murderers is supposedly the ideal romantic status of the Wasteland, even them will become sedentary and get to improve their own wellbeing, even if it's still at the expense of their neighbours, to someday stop doing that or end up exterminating them. And so, the cycle begins again, as many years as it might take.
Because that's the recuring theme in Fallout, maybe EVEN in 3 and 4 if you stretch it; the main threat to Man is Man himself, but that doesn't take away from the fact that we'll always do our best to rebuild; and it's not as nihilistic as it could be, Endings and your input make it so that, despite our incessant obsession to fuck it all up, we can be better than that. That's the most bottomline and basic version of it and still contradicts you!
So they raid the villages. But what villages? Nobody will stay in that area if there is absolutely no protection and safety from some form of organization.
So the raiders would have to enslave the villagers, effectively, which requires more organization itself. Either way, this "anarchist" bullshit would survive for about a month and then die out because it's not sustainable without any form of order it can feed from. And everyone except the Fiends maybe knows that. If they destroyed the NCR, Legion, and House presence in the Mojave, the raiders would by necessity develop some new form of organization (a tyranny of the strong as shown in every single raider group in Fallout so far). Why would Papa Khan, Motor-Runner, or Eddie give up their positions as leaders after they "won"? Because they suddenly have an epiphany of how total chaos is super awesome? No, they'd have some infighting and the emerging victor would rule the wasteland as a raider king, imposing another form of order simply to stay alive.
But why am I even trying, all I get in response will just be "BUT I LIKE RAIDERS RAIDERS ARE COOL ANARCHY LOL".
So the raiders would have to enslave the villagers, effectively, which requires more organization itself. Either way, this "anarchist" bullshit would survive for about a month and then die out because it's not sustainable without any form of order it can feed from. And everyone except the Fiends maybe knows that. If they destroyed the NCR, Legion, and House presence in the Mojave, the raiders would by necessity develop some new form of organization (a tyranny of the strong as shown in every single raider group in Fallout so far). Why would Papa Khan, Motor-Runner, or Eddie give up their positions as leaders after they "won"? Because they suddenly have an epiphany of how total chaos is super awesome? No, they'd have some infighting and the emerging victor would rule the wasteland as a raider king, imposing another form of order simply to stay alive.
But why am I even trying, all I get in response will just be "BUT I LIKE RAIDERS RAIDERS ARE COOL ANARCHY LOL".
CerberusGate
I should save my game in a whole new slot
But I guess your logic here is that what you think is good is objectively good and that everyone else is wrong for not agreeing with you. It's a lot more eye-rolling when you resort to the same "I love it, therefore it's awesome" fallacies to support your logic when time and time again, people have refuted it with their own arguments and point out how your logic contradicts itself.
I have pointed out before in another discussion that anarchy never lasts. Eventually, some form of order emerges whether it be out of necessity, desire etc. Plus it has been pointed out that a raider society will falter on accounts of there being nothing to raid and if they start raiding each other, groups of raiders would get organized & create some form of order to survive. So Raidtopia & anarchy fails and causes rebuilding to proceed again.
Again, you do realise that the opinion of a single person, even A creator (keyword is "a" in case you didn't catch that) does not make it more valid than the creative decision of an entire dev team. The fact that you can argue, debate or dismiss Avellone's opinion (by arguing, debating and/or dismissing Ulysses in Lonesome Road) should be indicative of the fact that the opinion is just that, an opinion. Not the objective fact or opinion that is valid.
So keeping a regime that encourages intolerance, slavery and isolationism alive and kicking is a good thing? Because that's Vault City. Also, note that a good ending for VC results in them making an beneficial alliance with Gecko.
The Den and New Reno? Hives of scum and villainy rife with corruption and vices. So keeping them free to pillage and burn a society still recovering from the apocalypse is a good thing?
Modoc, Klamath, Gecko, Broken Hills (though this place shouldn't count since the main resource wound up being depleted), San Fran? Capable of being independent for a time but eventually they will join up with each other and stop being independent since it's more beneficial and allows each other to cover for their own deficiencies. Modoc's good ending even has them providing for the whole region rather than remaining fully independent. Plus the fact that those city states exist kinda goes against your whole idea of constant anarchy sinc
Plus Tandi's expansion of the NCR is a lot better than Kimball's. There may be some underhanded moves here and there but it's a lot more slower than Kimball's rapid one and it does provide definite safety (bed and roof over one's head, security during the night etc.).
Fiends in Vault 3 a problem? Send in a few squads of NCR troopers. Fiends retreat to the vault, as they always do when the NCR attack in force. NCR plant some explosives in the warehouse above and bury the entrance in rubble. Wait for the Fiends trapped inside to murder each other over the last few doses of jet. Profit.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Or ask a Courier to go there and be certain to not get supplied a Khan outfit or be particularly worded. Not like you aren't killing at least 1/3 of the Fiends to get to Vault 3 in the first place even if you then do not aggro the ones inside.
Also @CT Phipps, if you're okay with a horde if murderous and rapist thugs ruled by a strict hierarchy overpowering everyone else to have them under their thumb, why are you so against the Legion? And at least they don't use Chems.
mithrap
Ring a ding-ding, baby
The vipers have an interesting premise, and if you add the Van Buren's daughters of Hecate, there's potential for quite an important faction. Maybe not a major one like the NCR, but still one with its own settlements and quests.
CT Phipps
Carbon Dated and Proud
To clarify:
1. I support the Independent endings as the best for the Mojave. NCR is collapsing from overexpansion, House is a tyrant, and Caesar's Legion is industrialized imperialist evil with a dash of warlordism as well. Making a Mojave "buffer state" between NCR and the territory it wants to conquer means it will have to focus on internal problems instead.
2. I don't actually think Raiders would be an idealistic state. I support a Raider ending the same reason I like the Enclave in that Raiders are a cool, iconic part of fallout and it would be fun as an alternative "evil" ending. Certainly, though, I find Raiders less offensive as an ending than Caesar's Legion but it's not an ending I support because I think it's a good thing.
It's one I support as an ending because it would be FUN.
Don't get my two opinions above confused. You can love the idea of Raiders and Chaos as a storyteling trope without wanting it on Moral GroundsTM.
Also, bluntly, people are wrong about the Raiders driving out all settlers. In Real life, armies passing through acted like Raiders for centuries. People didn't uproot themselves because free land and becoming a refugee isn't a great thing.
Look at the Seven Samurai. In general, people just give up their stuff in exchange for not being murdered.
1. I support the Independent endings as the best for the Mojave. NCR is collapsing from overexpansion, House is a tyrant, and Caesar's Legion is industrialized imperialist evil with a dash of warlordism as well. Making a Mojave "buffer state" between NCR and the territory it wants to conquer means it will have to focus on internal problems instead.
2. I don't actually think Raiders would be an idealistic state. I support a Raider ending the same reason I like the Enclave in that Raiders are a cool, iconic part of fallout and it would be fun as an alternative "evil" ending. Certainly, though, I find Raiders less offensive as an ending than Caesar's Legion but it's not an ending I support because I think it's a good thing.
It's one I support as an ending because it would be FUN.
Don't get my two opinions above confused. You can love the idea of Raiders and Chaos as a storyteling trope without wanting it on Moral GroundsTM.
Also, bluntly, people are wrong about the Raiders driving out all settlers. In Real life, armies passing through acted like Raiders for centuries. People didn't uproot themselves because free land and becoming a refugee isn't a great thing.
Look at the Seven Samurai. In general, people just give up their stuff in exchange for not being murdered.
In real life, people didn't leave because (you said it yourself) the enemy armies were passing, not settling next door and coming by, pillaging and stealing your food and possessions while beating you up every second day. Armies come by, take all the food/values they can get and move on. Also I am pretty sure many civilians would move away, run or hide while an enemy army would be marching by their lands/houses and return later.
Free land is plentyful in the Fallout universe, most of the USA is not owned.
Not to mention most of these are settlers, they haven't been living in the Mojave for long and only settled there because it is a quite safe environment (plenty of NCR troops around), that is how Goodsprings was settled by people that came from the NCR for example. Places like Novac and Primm only exist because they are on route to New Vegas so tourists, caravans, etc. pass by there constantly.
If New Vegas was controlled by crazy, violent and drugged raiders, I doubt those settlements would exist for long.
The Seven Samurai movie is a different situation. First, without that plot, there wouldn't be any movie. Second Japan is not a wasteland where you can just settle anywhere you want to. Third, wasn't there something about being all killed if they try to run away? My memory is fuzzy. Fourth, Japan in that age didn't really have any law enforcement and bandit groups that raided villages were common pretty much everywhere (so there wasn't anywhere safe to settle a new village). And fifth, I can definitely remember that some villagers even say they should just hang themselves than keep suffering bandit raids or being under bandit control or something like that.
No, no civilian has ever fled from a marauding army. That never happened in history. NEVER AT ALL I TELL YOU.