Fallout 3 Insidious Morality

The Man From Nowhere

It Wandered In From the Wastes
Why is it that you can go through droves upon droves of Vault security guards at the very beginning of the game and waste them like nothing, and without any options to converse nonetheless, just to have the opportunity to be nice and consider the importance of human life for the overseer; the very man who sent them to kill you and the very reason for entire conflict?

Yet if you kill him, Amata will be greatly upset. Up until this point you have already killed over a dozen guards who had lives and families as well, only for the narrative to stop and make you think about the morality and implications of killing the very man who sent people to kill you and is responsible fo the death of, guards, innocent bystanders, and Jonas whom you grew up with and one of your fathers contacts?

There's no fucking way I'm letting that guy live, he basically killed all those people by sending them after me.

Another example of this is the very ending when entering the purifier you can have a short dialogue and convince Coronal Autumn to walk away. This is the dude that is the very reasons for all these deaths and conflict, and the reason for my dads sacrifice, so why the hell should he just walk away after we killed dozens upon dozens of his minions?


There's something fucked and insidious in Fallout 3's morality where mercy and consideration of life is only reserved for those in the narrative who are the very source of all the evil and destruction and death.



It's the law of Fallout 3 morality. Slaughter the mooks by the hundreds, but the main villain? If you kill him you'll be JUST LIKE HIM
 
Last edited:
It's not a question of morality, it's the fact he's her father.

He's a POS.

But morality has nothing to do with human relationships.

As for Colonel Autumn, you're doing the right thing telling him to walk away because he LISTENS. If I could spare all of the Enclave soliders and tell them to go then I would but the difference is he's not actively shooting at you but talking.

It's called self-defense versus executing people.
 
I know how much we like to rip on Fallout 3 here, but I don't think I've ever played an RPG where the morality system didn't show similar holes.
 
I don't remember because I haven't played in a while, but I'm pretty sure that at least the second example is not framed as you "sparing" the guy, but rather talking him down from trying to kill you. Essentially, the mistake is just that you can't do that with all the minions, so you have to do something or die.
And maybe the fact that by "do something" you chose to murder them all instead of sneaking past them says more about your morality than the game's. (not really because the game is retarded)

The real problem is the karma system in general that gives you negative karma for stealing from murderers and let's you absolve mass-murder by handing water to strangers and other dumb shit like that. Makes no sense anyway that it passes judgement on your actions from above and assumes all characters are wearing Detect Evil/Good goggles, when it's really the characters and factions in the game that should be angry/glad when you do something they (dis)-approve of. Reputation all the way.
 
Good guys win, bad guys die, that's why the morality doesn't make sense, Bethesda doesn't care about why the characters are doing what they're doing, the people who made FO3 needed bad guys to shoot and that was it. You get options with the main villains probably because Bethesda didn't want you to kill something they put a tiny bit of effort into, or maybe it's just to create the illusion of choice, yeah you killed half the Vault but you can talk to this guy here.
Most people don't care enough to stop and think for a second if anything makes sense, in fact it doesn't take much thought before the whole plot starts to fall apart, alongside with the game mechanics. Maybe that's why there are reviews where people talk about the complex morality of FO3.
 
I think a lot of what everyone here says is actually against real life rules of war and kind of makes the complaints redundant.

In real life, there's no law (for obvious reasons) for killing people in combat or in self-defense.

While there are laws for executing people.
 
It's a very common trope in action movies that the hero will mindlessly gun down countless minions, but he is suddenly struck with conscience when confronting the final boss. Bethesda's conformity to Hollywood tropes (as well as not adding anything substantial to Fallout lore) shows their writers lack of imagination.
 
What gets me more on 3's busted morality system is the choices are usually really weird, and not much of a real choice if we're talking nuanced morality decisions. Either nuke a town and wipe out all its people who've been nothing but nice to you and who you have no reason to harm, or don't. Gee, what a choice! While New Vegas has shades of this too, they still do a better job. Goodsprings for example, at least Joe makes an argument for why you could betray the town. Tenpenny just tells you to blow up the town, gives you a room, then tells you to piss off.
 
Do everything there is to do in Megaton, then nuke it

Then let Roy and his gang slaughter Tenpenny, then slaughter them in turn
 
It's a very common trope in action movies that the hero will mindlessly gun down countless minions, but he is suddenly struck with conscience when confronting the final boss. Bethesda's conformity to Hollywood tropes (as well as not adding anything substantial to Fallout lore) shows their writers lack of imagination.

Philosophically it's the equivalent of killing all the Nazi concentration camp guards no questions asked, but having a deep conversation and straight up sparing Adolf Hitler.

That's what's so insidious about it. Fallout 3 and 4 are especially terrible with this.

The Triggerman and Skinny Malone quest from Fallout 4 is another example of this. Just to enter inside the vault to rescue Nick, you have to kill what must have been dozens of his crew members. Just to be able make a speech check with Skinny in order to solve the quest "peacefully".

Mind you this is the the figure who is most responsible and the brains for his capture.
 
Remember how Fallout 3 gives you good karma for date raping that priest in the church?

That's probably one of the most disturbing parts.
 
Remember how Fallout 3 gives you good karma for date raping that priest in the church?

That's probably one of the most disturbing parts.

I want to know what Bethesda's thought process was with that one. I really want to know who sat down and thought that was even remotely appropriate.
 
New Vegas should have never included the karma system used in 3.

I can massacre Powder Gangers and gain karma, while stealing from them is a bad thing.

I can even rescue Powder Gangers, or give them medicine and thats a good thing too.


One of the worst aspects is one of my characters in New Vegas was supposed to be this badass merc with neutral karma. All of the sudden two psycho fiend chicks come at him with a knife and fucking flamethrower and I shoot them down as they're coming at me.


All of the sudden my character is a good guy.
 
New Vegas should have never included the karma system used in 3.

I can massacre Powder Gangers and gain karma, while stealing from them is a bad thing.

I can even rescue Powder Gangers, or give them medicine and thats a good thing too.


One of the worst aspects is one of my characters in New Vegas was supposed to be this badass merc with neutral karma. All of the sudden two psycho fiend chicks come at him with a knife and fucking flamethrower and I shoot them down as they're coming at me.


All of the sudden my character is a good guy.
Just ignore the karma system, New Vegas doesn't even use it. It's about the reputation system.
 
Remember how Fallout 3 gives you good karma for date raping that priest in the church?

That's probably one of the most disturbing parts.

And gives bad karma for giving Quantums to Sierra's neigbour, so he can earn some points and finally bang her.
 
Back
Top