What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Essay

  • Thread starter Thread starter PsyckoSama
  • Start date Start date
P

PsyckoSama

Guest
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Apr-28-01 AT 06:28AM (GMT)[p]
One major complaint about Fallout Tactics is the apparent change in the Brotherhood’s attitude. It appears that they have gone from an isolationist, yet somewhat benevolent paramilitary force of high-tech survivalists to an army of extremely well armed fascist brown-shirts existing only to enforce their will over as much Wasteland as possible.

The effects of the Brotherhood’s change can be seen in both Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics. In Fallout 2 the “Western” Brotherhood had lost much of it its martial drive and prowess, shrinking into the depths of it’s own isolationism. In Fallout Tactics the “Eastern” Brotherhood had lost the moderate mindset and general sense of morality and virtue that the made the Brotherhood a force to be respected rather then reviled.

The primary question asked by those who would form the Eastern Brotherhood is one sign of the corruption of the Brotherhood. The question, should the Brotherhood recruit from outside their ranks had deep ramification. One does not build a large standing army unless he or she intends to use it, and that use is almost always conquest. The more idealistic Brothers and Elders no doubt saw the overt militant interests of the right-wing minority. They may have seen the splinter faction as a dangerous influence, as a force that could have endangered both the Brotherhood and Southern California. This may be why they were cast out, and without the moderating presence of the more liberal Brothers they were able to do as they wished.

The danger posed by the splinter faction is obvious in the “evil” Brotherhood ending of Fallout. By exterminating the Brotherhood leadership, the evil Vault Dweller created a power vacuum, and into that vacuum steps the right-wing Elders, filled with fervor and a lust for retribution. For those who have never seen the evil Brotherhood ending, it results in the Brotherhood conquest and subsequent tyrannical rule of southern California. Reminds one of the Eastern Brotherhood’s methods in Fallout Tactics, no?

Without the presence of the more right-wing Brothers, the Western Brotherhood began to decline. With out the militant edge of the right-wingers, who they had “graciously” made some one else’s problem, they lost the Militant edge that had kept them sharp and focused for over 80 years. It is this weakened Western Brotherhood that the Chosen One contacted in Fallout 2. It was only the threat of a hostile force with military and technological power in excise of their own that finally forced the Western Brotherhood from the path of self-destruction

By casting out part of their number the Brotherhood removed the balance that made them what they were. With the balance removed both sides were free to do what they wished. The Western Brotherhood started to drown in its own isolation and benevolent ideals, without the right wing to keep them grounded in reality. While Eastern Brotherhood reveled it it’s own orgy of conquest and oppression, without the liberals to temper their ambitions with morality and reason. The Brotherhood in Tactics is not the true Brotherhood of Steel; it is only their dark side aloud to run amok.
 
RE: What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Es

You make some good points.

However, the Brotherhood in the game even conflict with the openning movie of Fallout Tactics. The one where they expand their influence by trading supplies and medicines to villages in exchange for new recruits. The introductory move suggests a benevolent conscription method.

Even in the game, you save villages in the first mission and tribals want to join up because you help them.

Then along comes Mission #4 with the mass murder of starving civilians, execution squads and the forced labor camps.

The dark, evil BOS doesn't even fit the continuity of the game itself. If the Brotherhood is interested in gaining new people and establishing alliances with towns, why not just take the civilians in Mission #4 some food? Maybe teach them to make their own food?
 
RE: What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Es

>
>The dark, evil BOS doesn't even
>fit the continuity of the
>game itself. If the Brotherhood
>is interested in gaining new
>people and establishing alliances with
>towns, why not just take
>the civilians in Mission #4
>some food? Maybe teach them
>to make their own food?
>

It's actually quite simple. First Rule of the Brotherhood of Steel: Don't fu*k with the Brotherhood.:)
 
RE: What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Es

Personally, you have to admit, it's entirely possible that what they did is necessary. Consider what happens after the brotherhood allies with the calculator: the midwest turns into a utopia of the wastelands, with the great plains becoming a breadbasket once again. Now, the bos in the old tactics did not do this. Southern california was a disunited band of squabbling city states by the time of 2 (NCR, New Reno, Vault City). But the midwest, by that point, probably ruled from Texas to Chicago. In that world, though cars were rare, they still existed, which is more than the original BOS in the west had. I think they were a necessary evil. Some one had to unite humanity. That's why in times of crisis, dictators rise to power. I thought the brotherhood were the good guys. Compare them to the raiders: They killed the people attacking those under their protection. It's essentially a fuedal system, yes, but fuedalism is better than the anarchy there beforehand.
 
RE: What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Es

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON May-03-01 AT 11:22PM (GMT)[p]I think the Brotherhood is justified in killing "civilians" in Mission 4. As the Pilot at the very beginning states, his former escort squad was killed. Sure, I doubt this was done by the civilians and their awesome rock-throwing prowess, but they certainly aren't helping the supply vehicles get through.

Honestly, if you see a police officer trying to arrest a criminal, do you go up and kick the officer in the shins so the crook can get away? Hopefully not. Most people that have any common sense know to stay out of the way.
Sure, the civilians are hungry, but I somehow doubt that helping raiders destroy/maim/kill BOS soldiers & equipment is going to make the Brotherhood say, "Aww, how pitiful. We should give them a hand." I'm sure that if they stayed out of the way and let the supplies get through, and assisted in "disposing" of raiders when possible, they could easily walk up to a bunker and say, "Hey, we need some help here. Help us out, and you'll have more recruits."
But anyway, attacking Brotherhood supply vehicles isn't going to help any, and I seem to have lost my point somewhere. lol :7

But I like the dark, mean, fascist Brotherhood. It shows that desperate times call for desperate measures, and that sometimes the most efficient way of doing things isn't always the morally correct way. The BOS has a goal, and it comes before all else.
 
RE: What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Es

I don't really think that the Brotherhood is 'dark' OR 'light'... you see BOTH aspects of it throughout your missions. The Brotherhood uses a mix of benevolence and opression, whichever is deemed necessary for the area/situation, to command respect.

The plot of FOT is, in my mind, incredibly realistic. A lot of people gripe about how it's too linear, or that the Brotherhood is too much of a heinous entity. In actuality, everything you see is through the eyes of a soldier. A soldier does WHAT they're told, WHEN they're told, and doesn't ask questions. Not of the mission, not of the superiors.

"Nil Desperandum"

http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a5b0768718cafc4.jpg
 
RE: What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Es

Wow! Reminds me of the Milgram arguements only in a game. Yeah, it would happen -soldiers have shot civilians in a number of wars. One outstanding event was when one American squad massacred a village in Vietnam looking for ONE spy - but in fact, no Vietcong were there. They slaughtered innocents.

So what's unusual about wasting some jackass "civilians" that come running throwing rocks and molitov cocktails at your bunch of soldiers in body armor and much heavier weapons. It boils down to the law of the wastelands itself. The strong survive in a pitched battle. I tried to leave the "civilians" alone, but they just kept coming back to attack. It would be nice to be able to just leave them alone - let them beat uselessly on your armored soldiers and walk on by, but they had those damn grenades! Finally, I had it with them and taught them the meaning of "tactics."
 
RE: What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Es

Probably because it completely refutes what's known about the Brotherhood of Steel from the first games *and* what is said about this new Brotherhood of Steel in the introduction movie.

It's really hard to recruit people from a town when you kill them. Especially when you consider the fact that all it would take to earn their loyalty is to feed them.

http://www.terra-arcanum.com/library/Proverbius/prov_sig01.jpg
 
RE: What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Es

>Probably because it completely refutes what's
>known about the Brotherhood of
>Steel from the first games
>*and* what is said about
>this new Brotherhood of Steel
>in the introduction movie.
>

Defending the Brotherhood from attack is established in game one.

>It's really hard to recruit people
>from a town when you
>kill them. Especially when you
>consider the fact that all
>it would take to earn
>their loyalty is to feed
>them.

That would be great if the people in that particular town would take the time to stop throwing and shooting at you to negotiate. Oh, wait. One does - then tries to shoot you. Nice people. I really want them on my side! You don't go into that town because the natives were being polite. They were doing what they do when you arrive. Attacking, with no regard for the consequences. Maybe it's a stupid premise for a town, but it's in line with Brotherhood pattern of response. The only exception being the possibility of ignoring the civilians even though they attack and seeing if that generates a different mission outcome. Has anyone tried that?
 
RE: What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Es

>Defending the Brotherhood from attack is
>established in game one.

If the Brotherhood is scared of starving people with rocks, they're in real trouble.

>That would be great if the
>people in that particular town
>would take the time to
>stop throwing and shooting at
>you to negotiate. Oh,
>wait. One does -
>then tries to shoot you.
> Nice people. I
>really want them on my
>side!

Yeah, one person out of how many people in that town? Most were armed with rocks.

I think if you were faced with the slow, agony of death by starvation, you'd be fairly desperate as well. If you knew there was a car full of food rolling through town, and not stopping to help out, I think you'd be after it as well.

>Has anyone tried that?

Yeah, no change in the ending.

http://www.terra-arcanum.com/library/Proverbius/prov_sig01.jpg
 
RE: What Changed the Brotherhood of Steel: A Hypothetical Es

Place yourself in the civilians' shoes; you live in a town where the only thing that passes for law is Darwin's theory of evolution. Then, one day, a caravan comes through carrying the most valuable commodity that you know of: FOOD!

Now, take in the situation: five, maybe six people driving the lunch wagon; about 50 or so raiders, all armed to the teeth, with everything from knives to rocket launchers. You KNOW the raiders aren't going to share their fought-for gains with the likes of you. It would stand to reason that even if the raiders didn't kill the remaining people in the caravan, the convoy would be considerably weakened. Not to mention, the strongest human instinct is survival; i.e. you attack whomever gets in the way of your existance, out of this basic edict. Who would blame you?
 
Back
Top