Was the Master's failure due to his morally good motives?

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Morality in Fallout. From a post I made on the BethSoft forums (my posts seem to disappear quick lately, hence reposting here)

I think people overdo idealising the supermutants themselves in the original Fallout. In the end, they were simply dumb brutes, not exactly much higher on the evolutionary scale than deathclaws, and bred and used only for killing.

But the clear dichotomy of good and evil that would be caused by having a dumb, irrational enemy that you can kill without any moral qualms would obviously not fit Fallout.

I think that's why the Enclave in Fallout 2 are a less popular enemy than the Unity. In the end, the head of the Unity was The Master. And while misguided, the Master is ultimately altruistic, to the point that if he were not stopped by the Vault Dweller, he might've just ended up destroying his own project when he found out FEV causes sterilization, for himself. The Enclave, in the meantime, were just wacko nutjobs with an irrealistic, illogical and megalomanic plan. There was not a single Enclave life I pitied to see die when blowing up the oil platform.

And that's wrong. This isn't your standard Christian-stemming good-vs-evil fantasy fair, with strong religious roots like the works of Tolkien or Lewis. A "dumb enemy" group as a major presence in the game would be...stupid.

As stupid as the unfinished Raider cave in Fallout 2. Stupid.

Not a bad thread. I agree with the OP, but with a bit of looking deeper into it:

I think the point of it, from (again) a W.I. Thomas-theorem standpoint, is that normal societal structures are broken down and convential morale simply no longer offers a viable base for a society structure. I think this is the reason Fallout 1 avoided political and religious commentary. Not because it would be controversial, but because the game was not so much about looking at our current temporal matters but more about looking at human nature tossed into a foreign situation in one go. The whole retro-50s offers a perfect background for this, because even the base of the post-apocalyptic future has a foreign morale.

And that's the whole reason conventional logic on good and evil is superseded by more practical matters and pragmatism. In the end, the only important issue when making a choice is "who will this help or hurt," the "why" which we always worry about has fallen to dust, and any justification for any act would be considered idiotic. This is also the reason why in the original design helping Gizmo would give a better ending for Junktown than helping Killian (marketing changed that for more conventional good and evil)..

This could also be seen as the reason the Master failed. His religious tendencies emphasised by the usage of a cathedral coupled with the ultimately good and altruistic goals he set for himself are simply "out-dated," and have no place left in the wasteland. The comparison to "Heart of Darkness" is an apt one, in that it is about a loner that tries to apply standards that are not viable to the people around him, though with the marked difference that Kurtz is "too evil" for the world, while The Master is "too good."

Someone get 4too to comment
 
I think that the main problem with the Master in F1 is that the world isn't very divided - there are no signs of racism, sexism, warlike tendencies, etc.
If people were hated/discriminated for their race or gender or religion, the concept of Unity would be a lot more attractive.
In the Fallout world...
It's pretty pointless.
 
Say how?

Racism - all the ghouls live in Necropolis for a reason. Also note how you never have to prove the hostile motives of the mutants, everyone just assumes they're there
Sexism - sexism doesn't work in a world where every hand is needed for survival, this is a simple historical truth
Warlike tendencies - absent in humans, represented by mutants and, arguably, raiders

That said, I'm not sure why you'd need that backdrop. The whole raison d'etre of the Unity is directly tied to the difficulty of surviving in the Wasteland and Grey's perception that this survival is inevitably impossible for human beings. This emphasis survival again, while the "differentness" of the supermutans is emphasized by their physical form and the Master's pseudo-religious structure.

Hell, name one person in Fallout 1 that has more noble motives than the Master.

Explain to me what would necessitate more contemporary conceptions of morality as you're suggesting them rather than a raw emphasis on survival as a setting?
 
Yes, the Master was much better than the Enclave.

I also liked Van Buren's Presper. Not as good as the Master, but still much more interesting than the Enclave - and with good Intelligence and Speech you'd be able to convince him that his plan is wrong too.

Victor Presper was born and raised in the area formally known as Shady Sands, now known as NCR. He spent many of his years as a scientific adviser to President Tandi before his disillusionment settled in – a disillusionment fueled by the Caravan houses that ate away at NCR. He and the others effectively grew frustrated with Tandi, the BoS, the caravans, and everyone else. They just want to start over by wiping the slate clean. Presper needed military help, so he wrangled all of the pissed off NCR Army people into helping him. Even though the NCR Army was winning the war against the Brotherhood of Steel, morale was really low due to the sheer number of causalities they suffered. For every Paladin the NCR took out, they would lose ten or more dumb yokels with leather armor and a bad rifle. The army was also really tired of fighting against powder gangs, which were essentially created because NCR didn't have enough money to pay its railway workers.

When his breaking point finally came, Presper became determined to find a way to rid the world of chaos and human impurities, and discovered his savior in the Limit 115 virus. Through extensive research, Presper discovered the history of Limit 115 and its genocidal potency, and also discovered a viable means to cleanse the world. Using ULYSSES, the Tibbets quarantine prison, and a ballistic satellite known as B.O.M.B.-001, the way to human planetary domination and order became clear. He needed to get to B.O.M.B.-001 and use the nuclear weapons to clean the filth and wretch that currently occupied the surface.

Over the next few years Presper invited or sent scientists and students to the Boulder Dome, where he explained his idea to remake civilization. Those who refuse are put in cold sleep, using technology the original Dome scientists developed to aid space travel. Presper knows he can use the CODE (Challenge, Opportunity, Discipline, Ethics) technology developed there to convince them to help him when the time is right.
 
Brother None said:
Explain to me what would necessitate more contemporary conceptions of morality as you're suggesting them rather than a raw emphasis on survival as a setting?
Because I never saw any trouble with surviving in Fallout until Fallout 2 and the draught.
Basically, all that was unable to survive was already dead.
 
The master is trying to unify the people of the waste by turning them into one, same species a.k.a the giant, green mutant for they proof themselves being tough and able to absorb more radiation than a normie (ghoul is the better rad.sponge).

He is the only end-boss that PC can convince him what is 'wrong' with his plan, beside Kerghan of Arcanum. Truly, a memorable end-boss, he is.
 
zioburosky13 said:
He is the only end-boss that PC can convince him what is 'wrong' with his plan, beside Kerghan of Arcanum. Truly, a memorable end-boss, he is.

Don't forget the Transcendent One in Torment.
 
I always find that The Master has certain parallels with the Tyrant in the Dune series. All of the actions he did were for what he percieved as the only course for humanity's survival, yet he was responsible for much death and suffering in order to achieve it.

One of the best things about characters of this type is that they can follow either the role of protagonist or antagonist in the story without truly being either.
 
Sorrow said:
Because I never saw any trouble with surviving in Fallout until Fallout 2 and the draught.
Basically, all that was unable to survive was already dead.

The Hub would disperse no matter what, the BoS was on the defensive and would've falled if not for the VDweller, Shady Sands is tottering on the brink when the dweller arrives. L.A. Boneyard is a do-anything-to-survive tyranic society.

I can see how, superficially, you could not be struck by tough wastelands aspect of it, because Fallout doesn't play as a survival game itself, but it's hard to push that once you think about the towns, there's a consistent element of crumbling and/or having to do anything possible to survive.
 
Brother None said:
... the BoS was on the defensive and would've falled if not for the VDweller...
Unless some important aspect of BoS's situation in FO1 has flown from my brain since the last time I played (which is entirely possible), the only way I can imagine the BoS being on the defensive and "falling" is to perhaps say that, if the Vault Dweller had not dealt with the Master and his army, that they would've been overwhelmed by the sheer number of super mutants eventually.
 
Kyuu said:
Unless some important aspect of BoS's situation in FO1 has flown from my brain since the last time I played (which is entirely possible), the only way I can imagine the BoS being on the defensive and "falling" is to perhaps say that, if the Vault Dweller had not dealt with the Master and his army, that they would've been overwhelmed by the sheer number of super mutants eventually.

Exactly.

To convince the council, you must cite the fact that while they've been able to fend off raiders, the mutant threat will inevitably wipe them out.
 
So the reason to turn people into super mutants is that otherwise they wouldn't survive a super mutant invasion?
 
Ausir said:
So the reason to turn people into super mutants is that otherwise they wouldn't survive a super mutant invasion?

If you believe that:

a) the supermutants are the only possible threat to the BoS
b) the BoS can function as a self-sustaining society

Then no. The BoS was hardly representative of a thriving society, the BoS was isolationist and dead by definition.
 
The BoS wasn't a self-sustaining society, they traded with the Hub (weapons in exchange for food).
 
If they aren't self-substaining, how did they survive until the Hub was founded?
I suspect that they have similar life supporting equipment as Vaults.
 
You suspect wrong. They might have had rations for earlier times, but by the time of Fallout, they trade for all their food. That's stated explicitly in Fallout (dunno where, Ausir will know)
 
http://fallout.gamepedia.com/wiki/CABBOT.MSG

{190}{}{Why do you let the merchants in?}
{194}{Cab_40}{Why do I let 'em in? Well . . . we have to get our food and other things. We trade our weapons for
all that.}
{195}{}{Why don't you just grow food yourselves?}
{198}{Cab_41}{Uh, well, the purpose of this place is to make Scribes and Knights. Anyone
who wants to be something else just leaves.}
 
Finally, a good topic.

I don't think the classic dichotomy of good/bad applies here, as it's a pure grayscale scenario.

The reason Master failed was entirely due to a flaw in the FEV-II. If the virus wasn't fatally flawed, the VD would've propably joined the Master.
 
Back
Top