Radiation = Ghoul

D

DarkUnderlord

Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Just curious. In FO1 and 2 excessive doses of radiation kill you. Ghouls are made from exposure to radiation. So I I was just thinking, wouldn't it be nice if you could become a ghoul. Let's say you explore some area, get exposed to radiation and can't get any rad-away to treat it. A few days later, hey presto! Your skin turns green and lumpy, you lose strength and your charisma plummets (maybe your intelligence increases just so there's a good side). And of course.... all of those characters with a high doctor skill can turn their hands towards developing a cure for some BIG XP.
 
Not really

that cool. I am totally against these things. Wouldn't it be cool to play a ghoul or a mutant. Ugh, seen a lot of these threads in the past. Btw, we got that in tactics and the other races, imo, sucked. The total ghoul thing has been turned around for some reason. They where to be the bad guys. Only a few where good in Fallout 1.

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
RE: Not really

That's fairly shallow - the game clearly put across the point that the ghouls weren't evil, they were just as human as everyone else. It's just that people's initial perception of any ghoul would be bad whoever they were.
The ghouls in Necropolis were being manipulated remember? And the majority of super mutants you meet in Fallout 2 aren't hostile either.
 
RE: Not really

Manipulated or not. It doesn't matter. When you make something that is a carrion eater, it's bloody well evil. Just look at what Set says.

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
Besides

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Aug-26-01 AT 04:57PM (GMT)[p]To get back on topic. I wouldn't like to have it forced on me. Lets say you are questing along, minding your own bussiness and you turn. Even if it is takes a long time to turn, people will not like you anymore (seeing how people reacted to ghouls) and will react differently. I can remember the frustration some people had when they grew a sixth toe and wanted to take the citizenship test for VC. Bassicaly you have to drop everything that you are doing. Quests wouldn't get resolved because the person that gave it to you wouldn't want to have anything to do with a ghoul. Not to mention that when your doctor skill is low, it could take a long time to gain enough experience to get to a high enough level to get the cure. This would put you in a long transition period (in game speaking) that would be taken up with finding the cure and, first, building experience. And that means, probably, killing stuff and if you are at a high level that could take a loooooooooooooong time.

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
RE: Not really

What are you, a vegan? What's evil about eating other lifeforms? It's totally natural.
 
RE: Not really

In a sense, it's like cannibalism.

While it's true that eating other life forms is natural, there's a way of one 'race' eating the other or even plotting their demise that can be considered malevolent.

In essence, it's no more evil than war or cannibals, even though it might be needed for survival (though since they were based in Necropolis and from what is know they are not too adventurous - that means they have the munchies when someone comes walking by).
 
What the.....

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-01 AT 08:09PM (GMT)[p]You don't get it, do you. All the things you shaid is, basically, pointless dribble. Let me clarify. It doesn't matter how sympathetic you, i, Rosh, or anybody else is towards the ghouls' plight. If the game tells you the are the bad guys then they are the bad guys. Period. The only perspective that counts is the game perspective. We can debate the point if ghouls are good or bad ad infinitum but if the game tells you they are then they are. 85 to 90% of the ghouls in Fallout 1 or bad guys. And as i said they turned it around. In Fallout 2 99.9% of the ghouls where good. Now, i mite jist b a stuped lout bhind a komputor but that is a big friggin turn if you ask me. If you want proof i'll give it to you and proof that the majority of the ghouls in F1 where evil. Again these are facts from the games perspective and not me own views of them.

1. The carrion eating thing. I'll stick to that. And to those that still not believe they are carrion eaters. In the endgame slide show, or whatsemacallit, it says the Followers remains are taken over by "barely human carrion eaters". What does that barely human stands for do you think. And remember Set's words "Does next on the menu ring a bell". I challenge you to name me 5 RPG's in which they had a carrion eating creature wich was good. Oh, and don't come with something like that Korrax ghoul in BG. That was one ghould out of a hundred or so running around. Notice that i am also talking about the majority.

2. Set. Here's a prime example. If you talk to the ghouls under Necropolis, they tell you that Set only let's them live their because he needs them and that he gives them just enough water to survive. If he wouldn't need them, he would not hesitate to come down their and off'em or at least chase them away.
Also, here is a guy that dead seriously (pardon the pun) asks you to croak someone (even if it is a mutant) just so he looks more powerfull. You know, "Dirtnap makes my shadow grow". A real nice guy, right. But you shouldn't judge an entire people by the actions of one man. But if he would not have some backup, wouldn't he get his sorry ass thrown out ?

I do acknowledge the fact that the above might be debatable. But the following should drive it home.

3. What is the one thing from which you can, without a doubt, see if you are doing good or bad things ? Karma. How do you increase karma ? By either doing good deeds. Like rescuing Tandi or helping Killian against Gizmo. Or by killing bad people. If you attack the ghouls in Necropolis or antagonize Set that he attacks you and you kill them. Your karma goes up. In a couple of cases i even got the champion trait. If your karma can only increase by killing evil people and after you kill the ghouls your karma has increased then, at least from the games perspective, they are evil.

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
RE: What the.....

"85 to 90% of the ghouls in Fallout 1 or bad guys. And as i said they turned it around. In Fallout 2 99.9% of the ghouls where good. Now, i mite jist b a stuped lout bhind a komputor but that is a big friggin turn if you ask me."

To quote, someone, you don't get it do you? You seem to completely miss the point that the ghouls in Fallout 1 were, in essence, part of a gang. How does this make them any different to any of the numerate huaman gangs in the game? The only difference it seems is that you don't seem to accept that ghouls were, are in many instances, human and hence have as many qualities good and bad as everyone else. In Fallout 2 the ghouls of gecko were far more like all the other towns. They'd be quite happy to shoot you if you caused trouble, just as Vault City, NCR, or any other lawful town would. What you can't seem to grasp is that ghouls are not hellspawn - just like humans they are neither inherently good or bad. Morality is something society creates - or God, if you believe in such things.

"I challenge you to name me 5 RPG's in which they had a carrion eating creature wich was good"

Again missing the point entirely. Refer to the moral void above and try to recall points on necessity and natural predecents.

"But you shouldn't judge an entire people by the actions of one man. But if he would not have some backup, wouldn't he get his sorry ass thrown out ?"

Again refer to point on human gangs. Your insistance that ghouls are evil simply because they are ghouls is unfounded.

"If you attack the ghouls in Necropolis or antagonize Set that he attacks you and you kill them. Your karma goes up. In a couple of cases i even got the champion trait. If your karma can only increase by killing evil people and after you kill the ghouls your karma has increased then, at least from the games perspective, they are evil."

*Sigh*

Your karma increases for killing evil characters: by your logic I could say, "Hmm, the first humans I've come across are raiders, therefore all other humans must be evil, I'll go kill them." Obviously this is not the case in the game - and it's not the case for the ghouls either.
You didn't meantion trying to kill the ghouls underground did you... nor the ghouls in gecko... convenient lapse of information.

So I think this can be summed up:
Karma can go up and down from killing humans.
Karma can go up and down from killing ghouls.
Therefore ghouls share the same qualities in the game as humans as far as karma is concerned and aren't inherently evil as you will persist obstinantly in saying.
 
RE: Besides

>To get back on topic. I
>wouldn't like to have it
>forced on me. Lets say
>you are questing along, minding
>your own bussiness and you
>turn. Even if it is
>takes a long time to
>turn,

First of all, to 'turn' into a ghoul, you would need to be exposed to large doses of radiation. (Radiation that KILLS you now as it is). Now considering the first time I played FO1 I died for some unknown reason which upon reloading turned out to be radiation (Hey! I didn't know it killed you....) I was pissed. Wanna know what I did? I restarted, because in all my last saves I was radiated. Funny-thing is though, It's a role-playing game. YOU PLAY A ROLE. If you decide to expose yourself to large amounts of radiation then you turn (or maybe die, perhaps a 50/50 chance).

>people will not like
>you anymore (seeing how people
>reacted to ghouls) and will
>react differently. I can remember
>the frustration some people had
>when they grew a sixth
>toe and wanted to take
>the citizenship test for VC.

...People who are unable to deal with the consequences of their actions....

>Bassicaly you have to drop
>everything that you are doing.
>Quests wouldn't get resolved because
>the person that gave it
>to you wouldn't want to
>have anything to do with
>a ghoul.

That's the idea, oh Great Wise One! The same as in Fallout now, you kill children, certain people don't want to deal with you. You become a slaver certain people don't want to deal with you. You become a champion, certain people don;t wat to deal with you and as consequence, don't give you quests etc... Meaning that to complete every quest in the game would take several seperate tries all with different characters.

>Not to mention
>that when your doctor skill
>is low, it could take
>a long time to gain
>enough experience to get to
>a high enough level to
>get the cure. This would
>put you in a long
>transition period (in game speaking)
>that would be taken up
>with finding the cure and,
>first, building experience. And that
>means, probably, killing stuff and
>if you are at a
>high level that could take
>a loooooooooooooong time.

The idea is to be able to finish the game as a ghoul. Eg. You're walking along, you (stupidly) expose yourself to radiation. You turn. Now, you can only do quests for ceratin people (like everything else) some people treat you with R. E. S. P. E. C. T. While others try to kill you (same as when you're a child-killer). But.... If you want and are that way inclined, you can develope a cure and 'turn' back to 'normal' (I use the word 'normal' loosely). But... If you're full on combat, the simple, you continue on as full on combat and either wipe out anyone who hates ghouls (become a racist) or quit the game and start again.

Your argument that it will take a long time is flawed. It will only take a long time if you want it to. If you are a high level character and insist on being 'normal' again to finish the game then you do what it takes to accomplish that. If however, you accept your fate and can't/won't develop the cure then you finish the game as a ghoul. Other than that, your only argument is that ghouls are bad evil sons-of-bitches. An argument which is also flawed because again, in FO1 and 2 you can be a bad evil son-of-a-bitch and *still* finish the game.
 
A question

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Aug-29-01 AT 08:46PM (GMT)[p]Can you name the places in F1 where you could find ghouls ? Just the general area will do.
And where in the hell did i say that all ghouls where evil. I said that 85 to 90% of the ghouls who where in F1, the game, are evil. I even said that 99.9% of them in F2 where good.

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
RE: Besides

Fair enough. As long as you have the choice then i have no problem with it. As i said as long as it isn't forced on me. But for this to work their are some things to note.

1. You can't have a big general area of radiation on the world map. A specific area, like the Glow, could still be implemented. But not an area of several squares unless you are warned some way that this area is highly radiated and then you could take a detour to avoid it. Areas like these where not in the games. You could get radiated by travel but not to a high amount but still it something to note.

2. Radiation warning has to be given immidiatly after getting radiated. So that you can take you anti-rad drugs immidiately.

3. What about the NPC's. Does the same go for them ? If so, you need a way to control their anti-rad drug intake. That wasn't possible in the previous RPG's. Not only that but you couldn't see if they where radiated or not.

4. Anti-rad supplies must be plentifull. Just so you don't run the risk of running out. And also if a quest is givven that takes you to a highly radiated area, you should be able to find enough supplies to counteract the radiation.

5. And most importantly, imo. It must be stated clearly from the beginning of the game that radiation can have this effect on you. Eiter from within the game or from the manual. Otherwise you run the risk of not knowing and maybe turning and then we came back to the "forced into it" thing.

This is not negative criticism here. I only think that when your idea could be implemented, these are the things to look at.

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
RE: A question

"Can you name the places in F1 where you could find ghouls ? Just the general area will do."

What, precisely, has this got to do with anything I've said?

"And where in the hell did i say that all ghouls where evil. I said that 85 to 90% of the ghouls who where in F1, the game, are evil. I even said that 99.9% of them in F2 where good."

Your basic point at the start of this subthread was that you couldn't believe that the ghouls in Fallout 2 were 'good' on the whole when the majority were 'evil' in Fallout 1. This suggests to me that as far as you're concerned they're all 'evil'.
My point that you really seem unable to grasp is that ghouls are not inherently evil as you seem to insist. No one is inherently good or evil - that is physically imposible as these are not scientifically measurable qualities. That are completely subjective to the morality of the society in which the people exist.
Just what is it that's stopping you from realising the simple fact that ghouls have the same human qualities, good and bad, and are hence just as flawed or noble as any other character in the game can be is beyond me.

*************Physical charcteristics are not a basis for moral prejudgement.*************
 
RE: A question

No, my basic point at the start of this subthread was that only a few ghouls in Fallout 1 were 'good'. I didn't say anything about the Fallout 2 ghouls being 'evil' in my first post. Read it, it says "Only a few ghouls in Fallout 1 were 'good'". And i never said they haven't the same human qualities. Look, take the karma thing. Killing evil people (note people not ghouls) = good karma. Killing good people = bad karma. So that means that Fallout 1 sees most of them as evil, the ingame ghouls that is. In Fallout 2, most of the ingame ghouls are good.
The only thing that i have been trying to prove is that Fallout 1 has more evil ghouls in it then good and that they turned that around in Fallout 2 where they had more good ghouls then evil.

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
RE: A question

"The only thing that i have been trying to prove is that Fallout 1 has more evil ghouls in it then good and that they turned that around in Fallout 2 where they had more good ghouls then evil."

Prove? You don't need to prove evident facts.
What you don't seem to be able to accept is that there's no particularly good reason why this should be breaking the Fallout storyline and character personalities.
 
RE: A question

Well, going to the original game before they decided to add in Monty Haul and a few other aspects into Fo2 that were just plain stupid...

Ghouls were intended to be scavs, the wasted refuge that clings to life by a thread and whom were unfortunate enough to feel the ill-effects of the war. Dire situations bring upon dire behaviour, so they did fit the scav visioning as in Fo1.

Fo2 was a different matter, and it totally screwed the depiction of the ghouls as well as much more (plus also take creative license a bit too far in some aspects). There wasn't the definitive main enemy to be found, unless you counted the Enclave. And to be honest, that was hokey and downplayed by the rest of the game in a fragmented way. You had so many flavors of bad guys, and it was portrayed wrong to look like political factions instead of warring tribes or communities on the edge like the Hub, Junktown, and the Boneyards. If anything, Fallout 2 is at fault, because it ruined the conventions of Fallout in so many ways. City naming, guns, the feel of the game...it was all spoiled. Sin City (Vegas in Wasteland, New Reno in Fallout 2) was not fitting...it didn't quite fit at all.

People as a majority that have pleyed it through the series as released remember and prefer the Fo1 setting. It truly felt like you were a lost man in a lost world, and you had to etch your place. There were warring factions of humans, horrific beasts roaming the land, a secretive society that represents some fragment of the old civilization, a menacing army of mutations that are covered up by a cult, and last but not least - the waste and scavengers of the wasteland, those who have been barely surviving. That was the setting of Fallout 1 which #2 marred a good deal. Ghouls weren't quite the scavengers much anymore, they were set up in that reactor like the Partridge Family while the Brady Bunch of Vault City were throwing TP at them.

So is it unreasonable for the old fans to want the feel of the older game? Certainly not. So what was truly breaking the Fallout storyline and character personalities was Fallout 2. While it might have been good in some aspects, it turned into a Monty Python and the Holy Grail version of Fallout. Kept to some things, but threw other conventions out the window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top