Follow TV Tropes

Following

Fallout 4

Go To

Tacitus Watching Troy Burn from year 2016-IV
Feb 7th 2019 at 10:49:12 AM

And because Fallout locations are so rarely contained by actual current borders, just south of all that you can find the US Space and Rocket Center, "Rocket City", where lived the distinguished rocket pioneer/Nazi defector Werner Von Braun

A good opportunity to expand on some of the space exhibits we saw in Fallout 3, or go a more morbid route and turn the US Space and Rocket Center into a celebration of Fallout-America's ICBM arsenal. In either case the place would be an easy way to justify a Brotherhood or Enclave presence, or even a robot task force sent by House as part of his plan for the future.

And the further south you go, the more the predominant vegetation is mutated kudzu smothering the landscape, and presumably growing fast enough to strangle people while they're sleeping. Easy to imagine a post-apocalyptic organization devoted solely to hacking the stuff back and trying to devise a permanent solution to ending it.

And past that, swamps, bogs and... well, crap. The series blew its Disney World analogue with Nuka-World up in Massachusetts, so what the hell would we put in Florida?

The Triggermen are, IIRC, legitimate continuations of pre-war Mafia families. At least one scripted conversation has a ghoul member talk about how he and his boys pulled construction contract scams before the war.

Yeah, but... just, why would you spend that coin in Boston and not someplace like Chicago or Atlantic City? Or did they just latch onto the "Vice Town" theme for Goodneighbor and concluded they needed tommygunner wise guys in pinstripe suits and fedoras to go with it?

Man, the more I look at Fallout 4 the more half-assed it feels.

Fun fact, a civilization of intelligent mutant raccoons was going to appear in the original Fallout but was cut.

I remember reading that, I'd just completely forgotten until you reminded me. I just assumed if any critters would develop brains from radiation it would be the trash pandas. And, you know, Rocket Raccoon is in right now.

"This Cannot Continue"
Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay
it's a living
Feb 7th 2019 at 11:06:43 AM

For Florida — Cape Canaveral, Cubano culture, and alligators. I've always wanted them to reveal that there's a whole space station full of people left over from before the war... who can't get down. (*twang*)

I wonder if the raccoons were considered a step too close to Gamma World, which has its own mutant raccoon people in the form of the dabbers.

Feb 7th 2019 at 11:22:32 AM

Apparently concept art for the unreleased fallout tactics 2 had a bipedal mutant alligator wearing tribal clothing. To be honest i'm surprised they haven't put a civilization of mutant animals in a canon fallout game yet (I don't count the intelligent deathclaws from fallout 2 as they were deliberately engineered that way).

Feb 7th 2019 at 11:48:42 PM

[up]Eh. You can oust the worst of the old guard, and the hope is that it allows the Followers to actually lead for once, as opposed to just being sidelined.
Because the heavily armed raiders who kill children for fun and make their kids do the same would definitely listen to the pacifistic defenseless doctors this time...

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay
it's a living
Feb 8th 2019 at 9:42:23 AM

It's a risk, but it's better than wiping them out to the last man, woman, and child.

They're not that heavily armed and they don't kill kids for fun, not sure where the latter is coming from. They've got a longtime grudge against the NCR, but Bitter Springs is punishment enough — they don't need to be exterminated. A lot of them are tired of war, so yeah, I do think they might be more open to the Followers' influence this time around, without Papa Khan steering them back into fighting long-lost battles against the NCR. People, and cultures, can change. The Khans are already a far cry from the murdering thugs of the first Fallout.

The Followers aren't entirely defenseless, either. Wanting peace isn't the same as never fighting, and there are ways of persuading people other than with force. The Khans listened up to a point, and now they've seen that the old ways, raiding the NCR and running drugs, aren't working anymore. Leaving for the wilds of Wyoming could mean leaving their raiding lifestyle behind, and that seems like a position the Followers could leverage.

Feb 8th 2019 at 10:36:52 AM

Even without the Followers, it doesn't take much to convince the Khan drug cook to make medicine instead of chems. So it's definitely possible.

blkwhtrbbt The Dragon of the Eastern Sea from Doesn't take orders from Vladimir Putin Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
The Dragon of the Eastern Sea
Feb 8th 2019 at 12:36:36 PM

Oh boy. Watching Cheers while playing Fallout is so weird. They keep name dropping familiar place names

Edited by blkwhtrbbt on Feb 8th 2019 at 2:37:25 PM

Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you
Feb 8th 2019 at 11:07:42 PM

It's a risk, but it's better than wiping them out to the last man, woman, and child.
There's no such thing as a Khan non-combatant, particularly at the time we see them in the game. Every single Khan seen in New Vegas A. made a choice to become a raider, and B. has a gun.

Exposing the vulnerable masses of Wyoming to this gang of raiders is immoral.

They're not that heavily armed
By the standards of the tribals in the interior, they pretty much are. Recall that the White Legs went on a trail of genocide because they found a bunch of submachine guns.
and they don't kill kids for fun, not sure where the latter is coming from.
???

Bitter-Root: "My dad, he got himself fucked up, every chance he got. Always started with folk for no reason. Hell, he was the one who taught me to shoot. You know how? By taking potshots at NCR. And not just soldiers. Civilians, too. Even kids. Then he'd get high with all his buddies and swap tales about the folk they killed. Bunch of animals."

They're Fiends with fewer lasers.

The Khans are already a far cry from the murdering thugs of the first Fallout.
The Khans in New Vegas are far worse than the Khans in the first Fallout (which I just finished; hurray for Chinese New Year sales). Papa Khan recalls how his gang sacked several towns and caravans, and reigned unopposed over the Mojave until the NCR and other factions arrived. The Khans in Fallout mostly just bugged one small town. The Khans in New Vegas raided many towns, and also fueled another, bigger, gang of raiders that burned whatever they didn't.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 8th 2019 at 11:13:13 AM

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay
it's a living
Feb 9th 2019 at 12:32:52 AM

That's Bitter Root's shitty, abusive dad, one guy. They're not all like that. All we see of almost any faction is the combatants, and if you want a reason why we don't see more Khan noncombatants, it's because most of them were killed at Bitter Springs — 5th Recon had orders to fire on them as they fled. Bad orders from officers who pretty much thought of the Khans the same way you are, as a raider gang as opposed to an increasingly settled tribe, resulting in the slaughter of innocents, confirmed noncombatants, women and children and the elderly. That's what turned it into a massacre. That's what's driven the remaining Khans into the arms of the Legion.

They're definitely not worse in FNV. The Khans in the first game are kidnappers and racists who kill for fun, who attack caravans and ambush travelers. The Khans in New Vegas rob, steal, and kill, but it's out of a grudge against the NCR, and they seem to be developing a certain sense of Klingon-style honor even among the younger warriors. That grudge between them and the NCR, meanwhile, is a vicious cycle where, short of the genocide you're suggesting, eventually somebody's got to put their guns and spears down and walk away. The Khans can be persuaded, and that alone makes them vastly different from the Fiends, Vipers, and White Legs.

The idea is that they would be tempered by the Followers. From the sounds of things, Wyoming is mostly trackless wilderness, largely unsettled (it's mostly unsettled now), so sending them there is sending them away from vulnerable masses, to settle those lands, maybe tame them, if they're as rife with giant mantises and yao guai as other remote places. I've already acknowledged that there's a risk in trusting the Khans. But I figure it's a risk worth taking, especially with the Followers' influence. Certainly better than just killing them all.

Edited by Unsung on Feb 9th 2019 at 2:24:34 AM

Feb 9th 2019 at 3:09:55 PM

That's Bitter Root's shitty, abusive dad, one guy.
One guy, all of his friends, and everyone Bitter-Root knew in their rather small tribe. There are fewer than 100 Khans, according to the guide ("dozens"). Bitter-Root probably personally knew every single one. And his opinion on them was rather clear.
They're not all like that. All we see of almost any faction is the combatants, and if you want a reason why we don't see more Khan noncombatants, it's because most of them were killed at Bitter Springs 5th Recon had orders to fire on them as they fled. Bad orders from officers who pretty much thought of the Khans the same way you are, as a raider gang as opposed to an increasingly settled tribe, resulting in the slaughter of innocents, confirmed noncombatants.
They don't really have non-combatants, since even kids are trained to kill and women fight alongside their men, except the babies/toddlers (which is what, a 5-10 people that don't exist anymore?). Every single one, especially at the time we see them in New Vegas, is taught to kill and has a weapon. They're all, to a man, drug dealers, rapists, and criminals. Bitter Springs is held up as this horrible thing, but it doesn't work because the Khans are raider scum.

The soldiers involved are probably not experts on Khan society. They, thus, probably don't realize that the Khans don't have noncombatants; thus why Bitter-Root and even Papa Khan paint a much less sympathetic picture. Can you point me to any Khan characters anywhere in NV who could be characterized as a civilian? Because I can think of just one, the guy who failed his initiation several times. All the other Khans we see? Raiders. To be a Khan, you have to be a raider. That's the whole point of the sidequest about the Khan who didn't pass initiation.

They're definitely not worse in FNV. The Khans in the first game are kidnappers and racists who kill for fun, who attack caravans and ambush travelers. The Khans in New Vegas rob, steal, and kill, but it's out of a grudge against the NCR, and they seem to be developing a certain sense of Klingon-style honor even among the younger warriors.
They're definitely worse in FNV. The Khans in the first game spent a lot more time plotting than actually raiding. They never burned down any towns (except one in a potential ending) and aren't a big enough problem to disrupt any of the major trade routes (they're limited to one small section of the map, and unlike the Vipers, the Brotherhood didn't deem them troublesome enough to wipe out). The Khans in FNV have sacked several towns and many caravans, 'reigned' over the Mojave, helped the Legion, fueled the Fiends, and overall were a much bigger problem than the original ones were. You could talk to and join the first game's Khans too, so that's not a point in their favor. The only reason the FNV Khans aren't a problem by the time we see them is that the NCR crushed them when they actually were a problem. There's also no evidence that the first game's Khans made children kill other children, which is just a whole new level of depravity.
The idea is that they would be tempered by the Followers. From the sounds of things, Wyoming is mostly trackless wilderness, largely unsettled (it's mostly unsettled now), so sending them there is sending them away from vulnerable masses, to settle those lands, maybe tame them, if they're as rife with giant mantises and yao guai as other remote places. I've already acknowledged that there's a risk in trusting the Khans. But I figure it's a risk worth taking, especially with the Followers' influence.
There's probably still a lot of people up there, otherwise there wouldn't be much for the few dozen Khans to "carve a mighty empire" out of. The Followers being there is also indicative of this. You're exposing them to armed and dangerous raiders who kill children for fun and who, in this generation, raided many towns and caravans back in the Mojave and were such assholes that they caused the tribes of New Vegas to band together and throw them out. That's not moral to the people of Wyoming.
Certainly better than just killing them all.
I don't see why killing them is any less moral than killing the Fiends. Maybe because they don't shoot you on sight? But then, neither do the first game's Khans, so what's the difference other than the FNV Khans have probably killed more people?

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 9th 2019 at 3:15:27 AM

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay
it's a living
Feb 9th 2019 at 3:39:16 PM

I'm not saying fighting the Khans is immoral if you genuinely can't find a better option. Not every character has the skills to talk them around. But if you can make them see a better way forward, then that's worth something. It's not about who deserves forgiveness, it's about not repeating the mistakes of the past. And a mighty empire carved out of wilderness is an achievement as well.

And if your definition of noncombatant is just anyone who's potentially capable of holding a weapon, now or in the future, then there's no such thing as a noncombatant. The people who were killed at Bitter Springs were unarmed and running away. That is immoral.

Edited by Unsung on Feb 9th 2019 at 4:41:58 AM

Feb 9th 2019 at 3:46:09 PM

I would still hold that the Khans were open to reason and persuasion, and therefore have the capacity for evolution. I too think they could be tempered with influence from the Followers. I also think that moving away from the area and the distancing themselves from their resentment with what happened with the NCR might give them the perspective they'd need to move in a better direction. Flawed, I'm certain, but still potentially better.

Feb 9th 2019 at 4:04:50 PM

I'm not saying fighting the Khans is immoral if you genuinely can't find a better option. Not every character has the skills to talk them around. But if you can make them see a better way forward, then that's worth something. It's not about who deserves forgiveness, it's about not repeating the mistakes of the past. And a mighty empire carved out of wilderness is an achievement as well.
I would argue that it's highly immoral to not kill them all even if you can convince them to leave peacefully. They're raiders. When they get up to Wyoming, all they're going to do is kill, rape, and drug the people of Wyoming. Just like in the Mojave. And the people of Wyoming, if they're like the people of Utah, would be totally unable to defend themselves.

An "empire" implies forceful rule, which is in line with the Khans' MO. Thus, I reject the notion that they reformed off-screen with no one saying anything about it.

And if your definition of noncombatant is just anyone who's potentially capable of holding a weapon, now or in the future, then there's no such thing as a noncombatant.
My definition of non-combatant excludes someone who:

1. Was trained to kill.

2. Is part of a military or paramilitary organization.

3. Wears a uniform of said organization.

4. Is very likely to be armed, or actually is armed.

The people who were killed at Bitter Springs were unarmed and running away.
Killing unarmed and fleeing combatants isn't a war crime. Only if they were actively engaged in the act of surrendering. At most you could argue that some of the children weren't combatants, and there weren't that many of them.

We also don't know if they were all unarmed. It certainly seems implausible, considering every single Khan in New Vegas is carrying a gun. Boone just describes them as "women, elderly, kids, some wounded," and none of those categories are non-combatants in Khan "society." Papa Khan describes them as "women and children", and "women, our sick, our elderly"... never claims they were unarmed.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 9th 2019 at 4:11:01 AM

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay
it's a living
Feb 9th 2019 at 4:10:48 PM

It's stated in-game that they were unarmed. They were old, wounded, and children, and they were running away.

Military conquest isn't a requirement of building an empire. The NCR is an empire, and a not insubstantial part of their expansion has been peaceful. It's not binary. The NCR have also done plenty of shitty things in their own right, if it comes to that, but that doesn't have to define them. I've acknowledged the risk of the Khans falling back on old habits, but I think there's a good chance the Followers can turn them around. If you don't see it that way, then fine. Agree to disagree.

Edited by Unsung on Feb 9th 2019 at 5:16:29 AM

Feb 9th 2019 at 4:11:19 PM

Where is it stated they were unarmed? I checked Papa Khan and Boone's dialogue files, they say no such thing. It wouldn't make any sense with in-game evidence either, where every Khan is armed, including the women and the elderly.

Also, an unarmed and fleeing combatant doesn't suddenly become a non-combatant, especially when they're wearing a uniform. Which all Khans do. Otherwise bombing or shelling rear-area enemy personnel wouldn't be allowed in modern war, which it is.

Military conquest isn't a requirement of building an empire. The NCR is an empire, and a not insubstantial part of their expansion has been peaceful. It's not binary. The NCR have also done plenty of shitty things in their own right, if it comes to that, but that doesn't have to define them. I've acknowledged the risk of the Khans falling back on old habits, but I think there's a good chance the Followers can turn them around. If you don't see it that way, then fine. Agree to disagree.
The NCR is not an empire, it is a federation with a democratically elected legislature. An empire, by definition, is ruled by an emperor or another type of monarch.

The main difference between the NCR and the Khans is that when the former does something bad, it's almost always by a mistake and they immediately try to make amends. Or at least hide it. In the case of the latter, their bad deeds are not a bug, but a feature. They brag about it.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 9th 2019 at 4:20:24 AM

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay
it's a living
Feb 9th 2019 at 4:19:32 PM

The NCR investigation later found that most of the people 5th Recon were ordered to gun down were unarmed children, elderly, and the wounded. It's part of Boone's backstory.

Shelling civilian areas is a fairly grotesque element of modern war. It might be pragmatic, but I wouldn't describe it as moral.

An empire is just a group of countries or states ruled by one ruler or government. That usage has become common and you'll find it in pretty much every modern dictionary.

Edited by Unsung on Feb 9th 2019 at 5:21:05 AM

Feb 9th 2019 at 4:20:55 PM

"Rear-area", not civilian.

Again, where are they described as unarmed? Ctrl-F to Boone's dialogue files yielded nothing.

Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay
it's a living
Feb 9th 2019 at 4:27:48 PM

That's a pleasant euphemism.

I'm not going to trawl through the files for this. I remember it that way, the Nukapedia article states that there were unarmed civilians on site. You've made up your mind already.

Feb 9th 2019 at 5:10:24 PM

It's not a euphemism, I was literally referring to rear-area military personnel, like the ones who drive trucks.

The wiki doesn't cite that claim. I don't think evidence for it exists in-game.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Feb 9th 2019 at 5:14:48 PM

Does it say anywhere that they're rear line units or that they were armed or was that something you decided for yourself?

Oh really when?
Feb 9th 2019 at 5:26:36 PM

My reference to "rear-area units" was using a real world phenomenon as an example to illustrate what is or isn't a war crime. In this case, killing unarmed and retreating people is fine, since they're still part of a military or paramilitary organization, and militarily valid targets. I never said the Khans present fulfilled the role of rear-area personnel in modern militaries

I did, however, say that every single Khan we see is armed and uniformed, and that we know every single Khan is trained to kill. Thus, they qualify as the post-apocalyptic variant, from a moral perspective.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 9th 2019 at 5:27:43 AM

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Feb 9th 2019 at 5:28:52 PM

You didn't really answer my question at all and the only moral perspective where the Bitter Springs Massacre was acceptable is your own.

Oh really when?
Unsung it's a living from a tenement of clay
it's a living
Feb 9th 2019 at 5:38:07 PM

From the article I linked:

When the Khans were then pushed out, 1st Recon was ordered to fire on the ones retreating from the area. Radio contact with the NCR was sketchy at best, command not understanding that the situation involved unarmed people.

I'm not sure who says it off the top of my head. It might be Manny, it might be one of the other 1st Recon snipers, it might be someone at Bitter Springs, it might be a computer entry.

The wiki also says:

Having been harassed continuously by the Khans, the NCR was looking to settle a score and did not expect Bitter Springs to be anything but a raider camp. Fueled by anger and frustration, goaded by the Great Khan's audacity and lacking appropriate intel, NCR command ordered the attack on the settlement to disastrous consequence.

Even most NCR personnel think Bitter Springs was a tragedy where a lot of civilians — their words — were killed.

Feb 9th 2019 at 5:43:18 PM

[up][up]The Battle of Bitter Springs is morally acceptable under any sane rules of war. Every single Khan is a combatant, because their women are as armed and brutal as their men and all of their children are child soldiers. They don't have non-combatants.

[up]I checked Manny's dialogue files. He says nothing about them being unarmed. I checked Gilles' dialogue files. Nothing again. Dhatri's? Nope. So, in the absence of any opposing evidence, I'm going to go with what the game shows us, that being that every single Khan is carrying a weapon at all times, including not only the young men, but the women and the elderly too. The majority of Recruit Legionaries are probably below 18 (since they're said to be fielded as soon as possible in a universe where even the NCR recruits at 16, and it's also said that anyone who lasts a few years in the Legion is a rare veteran), but that doesn't change anything either.

The NCR soldiers, as I said, are ill-informed. The Khans being unarmed is something that could be plainly observed were it the case, while the title "civilian" is subjective and dependent on knowledge of Khan society. Bitter-Root, as well as in-game observations by the Courier, makes it clear that the Khans don't really have them any more than the Fiends do.

Edited by Kamiccolo on Feb 9th 2019 at 5:46:06 AM

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Feb 9th 2019 at 5:46:41 PM

Whatever you wanna believe man

Oh really when?

Total posts: 16,485
Top