As far as it is morally concerned, the Enclave do not seem that bad overall.
Eden had good reason to believe the wiping out Mutants was a good idea. Lets talk about which mutants were good to have around:
A) Ghouls
B) Regular non-Vault peoples.
Both of these are debatable 'good' as well. Of the Ghouls, easily half were feral of some sort, and thus very dangerous to regular folk, and were not immune to corruption (example: Roy at Tenpenny). There was also the wide belief (which was never denied or confirmed in-game) that regular Ghouls can go feral. Ghouls are almost the ones I want to wipe out the very least, but their presence in Capital Wasteland isn't exactly beneficial.
As for the regular folk, just from experience in the game, most of them are Raiders, Outcasts, or BoS. All of which the Enclave doesn't care about. Also the technological advancements made the wasteland peoples seem to be poor in comparison with Enclave technology in the least (water treatment plant being the exception, but it is built from old-war technology primarily).
Yes, it is bad to wipe out the good with the bad, for sure. And it absolutely is 'ends justifies the means' genocide. However, lets also consider how much more is done if all mutants are wiped out:
Mutant Animals: Only Brahmin (and certain ants) are non-aggressive in general. Wiping out everything else (Yao Guai, Deathclaws, Molerats, Ants, Radscorpians, and those bee things) seems like it's overall acceptable losses.
Super Mutants: There is only one 'good' super mutant in the game. And Fawkes won't go inside the room for me, so I could care less about him. Generally speaking, Genocide of these creatures seems -perfectly- acceptable to everyone, and is generally agreed to be beneficial for the wasteland.
Children of Little Lamplight: That would be the Enclave's good deed for the day.
Additionally, consider who would be the possible leader?
Eden: If in control would re-establish a government (to protect the people) and democracy. Being a computer I can believe that he would hand over government (as that is his role) as soon as an actual president was voted in.
Autumn: Lets say Eden gets overtaken by Autumn and thus Enclave control is assumed. Autumn wanted the water treatment and disagreed with the genocide placed forth by Eden. If Autumn takes over, then no harm is done, except for the Enclave taking control of the area, and establishing a government. The trade off is that with Autumn in control, the Enclave would probably remain as a shadow-government, controlling everything from behind.
So, given what we know from Fallout 3; the Enclave are wrongly made out to be the bad guys. They are only 'bad' because they shoot you on sight, which is hardly a qualifier of how they are bad to all.
(I know this justifies, in a way, the goal of the Enclave in Fallout 2)
Eden had good reason to believe the wiping out Mutants was a good idea. Lets talk about which mutants were good to have around:
A) Ghouls
B) Regular non-Vault peoples.
Both of these are debatable 'good' as well. Of the Ghouls, easily half were feral of some sort, and thus very dangerous to regular folk, and were not immune to corruption (example: Roy at Tenpenny). There was also the wide belief (which was never denied or confirmed in-game) that regular Ghouls can go feral. Ghouls are almost the ones I want to wipe out the very least, but their presence in Capital Wasteland isn't exactly beneficial.
As for the regular folk, just from experience in the game, most of them are Raiders, Outcasts, or BoS. All of which the Enclave doesn't care about. Also the technological advancements made the wasteland peoples seem to be poor in comparison with Enclave technology in the least (water treatment plant being the exception, but it is built from old-war technology primarily).
Yes, it is bad to wipe out the good with the bad, for sure. And it absolutely is 'ends justifies the means' genocide. However, lets also consider how much more is done if all mutants are wiped out:
Mutant Animals: Only Brahmin (and certain ants) are non-aggressive in general. Wiping out everything else (Yao Guai, Deathclaws, Molerats, Ants, Radscorpians, and those bee things) seems like it's overall acceptable losses.
Super Mutants: There is only one 'good' super mutant in the game. And Fawkes won't go inside the room for me, so I could care less about him. Generally speaking, Genocide of these creatures seems -perfectly- acceptable to everyone, and is generally agreed to be beneficial for the wasteland.
Children of Little Lamplight: That would be the Enclave's good deed for the day.
Additionally, consider who would be the possible leader?
Eden: If in control would re-establish a government (to protect the people) and democracy. Being a computer I can believe that he would hand over government (as that is his role) as soon as an actual president was voted in.
Autumn: Lets say Eden gets overtaken by Autumn and thus Enclave control is assumed. Autumn wanted the water treatment and disagreed with the genocide placed forth by Eden. If Autumn takes over, then no harm is done, except for the Enclave taking control of the area, and establishing a government. The trade off is that with Autumn in control, the Enclave would probably remain as a shadow-government, controlling everything from behind.
So, given what we know from Fallout 3; the Enclave are wrongly made out to be the bad guys. They are only 'bad' because they shoot you on sight, which is hardly a qualifier of how they are bad to all.
(I know this justifies, in a way, the goal of the Enclave in Fallout 2)