Well of course all the Enclave cares about is the Enclave, what else did you expect. Now fair enough the one thing about the Enclave I never understood was the whole Vault Experiment thing and if I had to object against one thing it would be the murder of US Citizens in the Vault, I mean why? Particularly with the huge loss of citizens after the Oil Rig explosion you would think they would start finding these Vaults.

The Enclave in Fallout 3 (or at least the humans like Autumn) want to help the Enclave by helping other people. Autumn considers the murder of all those people im-moral.

No evidence of that. He didn't necessarilly want to kill everyone, that's not the same as wanting to help them.

I'm sure Eden mentions that Autumn wants the people to "flock" to the purifier, if not for genocide I only assumed for some kind of settlement to be built. I mean that the wasters will likely benefit from some kind of Enclave established order even if the Enclave is doing it for it's own reasons, I know that's not the same as wanting to help people but aside from the Followers of the Apocalypse and Lyon's BoS which factions in the Fallout world do?

August's Enclave are better than Raiders. I'll give you that.

Some people seem to be using "technology level", or "intelligence", or "organization/efficiency" as yardsticks for who the 'best' is.

Why? You seem to be running under the assumption that whatever returns the earth to Pre-war levels of technology and industry is the best thing, regardless of the cost to the current inhabitants. But I don't see how you can say it is ok to hurt current inhabitants for the gain of other people in the future.

Are you trying to argue it is best for humanity as a whole? I would argue that giving up ideals and using brutal means to your ends is more harm than good.

And you can't argue it's about the survival of humanity, clearly humans (or sentient beings descended from humans) are going to continue regardless of whether pre-war civilization returns in 100 years or 10000 years.

Well what people think is best is their porogative, I think that if the Enclave whiped the slate clean and left only themselves that the humanity would be better off, what do you think?

It's 2010 on the internet, I thought subjective morality was an underlying assumption of everyone coming into this discussion?

Morality is subjective. You take a critical look at everything you know and plant your flag: this is what I think is good, this is what I think is evil. You keep an open mind to the arguments of others (afterall that's what this thread is for) but in the end youdecide for yourself and stand up for your beliefs.

Subjectivity is assumed, but in the end you are passing judgement: "this is evil because after critically thinking about it, I say it is evil, and that is enough".

The Enclave, and the children of the Enclave would be better off, not humanity. Also, since we are now dealing with a world full of other sapient species, the good of humanity is no longer good enough. The ultimate goal is the good of all the intelligent races.

Since the Enclave does not represent "all intelligent beings on Earth", I cannot see something that benefits solely them at the expense of countless other lives as anything but evil.

So what? I think that if someone wiped the slate clean and left only gerbils that the gerbils would be better off. Or if someone wiped the slate clean and left only redheads, the redheads would be better off. How is a particular subgroup thriving in the future of value over the survival of a majority?

Let's not forget the precedent it sets. They're establishing murder and genocide as acceptable doctrine. Promoting its continued use for any differences that crop up. As well as the problems that "purity" has for evolutionary concerns. Given a small group and denial of mutation, they have no genetic viability in the long term.

I'm all for subjective morality, but I think we can draw the line at genocide, can't we? If someone here is going to tell me that genocide can be not evil in the proper subjective context, then screw subjective morality, screw the internet, and screw all of you. I'm going to start going to church again.

Well here is one situation: we discover an alien race. We know them to be bloodthirsty and hostile. Both races are capable of using accelerating large objects to appreciable fractions of light speed and pointing them at the home planet of the enemy. You cannot stop such a weapon, and it would wipe out Earth. Do you launch first and commit genocide?

The act will be evil, but it is also necessary.

(this is a very plausible scenario btw, aside from the implausibility of contacting an advanced alien race)

I was thinking more in the terms of maybe a few centuaries, only one faction with literally no one else alive to fight. Richardson says that they haven't came to the conclusion of genocide likely and if there was another way they would do it, in one move they could end any kind of future war. There's enough Enclave even up till 2277 to prevent any kind of genetic stagnation, there are hundreds of them.

How so? As the Enclave got bigger and started repopulating the earth, the creation of different factions would be inevitable. Those factions would eventually come into conflict.

And frankly, a high tech civilization founded on genocide and brutal ends justifying the means would increase the chances of another apocalyptic war.

Fantasy isn't an argument. True existential and non-negotiable threats are an entirely different matter. Like smallpox.

Again, so what? They've stopped war with genocide. That accomplished nothing. The entire argument is that they kill so many people that they run out of people to kill, thus people will stopped being killed. At least until they get population growth.

It's ludicrous.

I thought that's what the Vault Experiment was for, so they could learn how to rebuild society. The Enclave keeps a tight grip on it's people through propaganda and such, there have been deserters sure but if there is no were else for them to go because nobody is left then they could really get enough people to start a war; the majority of people in the Enclave seem pretty content to keep following orders and sticking together, like during Broken Steel when there surely can't have been many left.

But then I suppose on the time-scale it would take for the Enclave to begining building multiple cities and such we can't really predict anything. There could be a schism as the Enclave gets bigger.

EDIT: Like the American Civil War.

The Vault experiments were primarilly isolation and hazard experiments so they would know what to expect when the Enclave left for another planet. To make sure that humans could handle the trip and hardships while they sought a new home.

The plan wasn't to rebuild, it was to leave.

Hrm that is interesting. Is there any evidence in the games that they got any really valuable information out of those insane experiments? If the Enclave had some sort of workable answer to all society's ills, and just needed to beat some people up in the early years before switching to Utopia, it makes them slightly more sympathetic. Slightly.

EDIT:



Whoa really?

Agreed, there isn't really any gray when it comes to CL.



Enclave is far more morally ambiguous than CL.

Well that's what I don't get, The Enclave seemed perfectly fine keeping all it's people isolated aboard the Oil Rig which was essentially a Vault for the Government, they still all lived indoors, they all breathed filtered air and presumably had hydroponics bays for their own food and they had no problems with morale or rebellion. They planned the Oil Rig and how they would survive on it before the Vault Experiment had begun so it was like they didn't need the data.

Actually there already is/was a schism within the Enclave between Col. Autunm and President Richardson. Richardson was looking for a replacement for the Col., hoping you (the wanderer) would be that replacement. Col. Autunm had just about decided that Richardson needed to be neutralized by that point. Ever notice that when Richardson says youre free to come see him, nobody bothers you. But the second Col. Autunm countermans that order, everyone in the Enclave base turns red and starts hunting you again.

Just because you have a single success doesn't mean you got everything right, nor does it mean you knew you got everything right. When you're planning a trip to another planet or even solar system, you don't want all your eggs in one basket like that. They need to plan for other potential problems, ones they might never have experienced on the oil rig. You're speaking from a hindsight bias.

And other times they just felt like being d-bags. Puppets and panthers.

Sounds like one of those cheese-ball "movies" the Syfy channel plays on Saturday afternoons. Is that the best you can do?

Yeah I suppose, but Eden was a machine, in any kind of reality he shouldn't have been President, but I suppose the point is still valid if very poorly written on Bethseda's part,

Autumn: "Betray the President! YOUR Commander in Chief!"
Trooper: "Yes Sir! No questions asked!"

Autumn was willing to kill the "President" because he didn't agree with him. I suppose it could have happened in the reality that the Enclave won in 2242.

The Enclave often employed psycopaths like Dr. Braun. In order to get usefulness out of these people, the Enclave sometimes had to provide them with a vault (or such), so they could carry out their own twisted experamental projects.

I think we can all agree here that the real gem of Fallout is infact the character immersion. In real life, the real powers do not appear as evil plain as night or day, regardless of whether they truly are evil. One of my reasons for adoring the Fallout series is that I study psychology and philosophy, and the decisions you have to make in Fallout are real, immerse, and there is no clear definition of good or evil.

You have the Enclave
Goods: They want to better the current situation, progress towards a clean healthy future, unite all under a single government, and rebuild a safe comfortable world.
Bads: They have no inhibition to avoid stepping on toes, they take what they want, when they want it and how they see fit. Plus, their way of getting perfection is to kill the imperfects with an FEV virus that will effectively kill anyone who is even slightly radiated or mutated. (like Hitler on a much grander scale.)

You have the Brotherhood of Steel
Goods: They seek to maintain peace and rebuild the world as we know it with less control over the average Joe. They believe in fairness to all, and give the waters freely, despite it being a GREAT chance to make money.
Bads: They very much resemble old society. They are stubborn, over cautious and slow to trust. They hoarde the valuable technology and maintain control, effectively keeping the wants and only giving bare neccesities.

You Have the New California Republic
Goods: They are an effective government that follows a strict system, they work towards progress much like the enclave, and also seek to unite all under one banner. They are definatly the most progressive towards a rebuilt society of todays standards.
Bads: There is corruption, self interest and facism all throughout. They resemble a machiavellian government in the sense that they appear to be for the people, but their true motive is simply control, and while they do protect those they own, their interests seem mostly selfish.

Then you have Caesars Legion
Goods: They are most definatly the most solid structure. Their government wipes the names of all they own and kill the imperfects and keep the perfects. As far as a "perfect world" goes, they are willing to break the eggs for the "perfect omelet" so to speak.
Bads: They seek nothing but absolute control and do not care how they get it, so long as it is theirs. They will not hide behind pretense as far as gaining the peoples love, they enslave the people who reject them and are clearly the most dominating.

Finally, you have my personal Favorite, Mr. House
Goods: He wants the people to do as they please, so long as they do not abuse this freedom. He believes the system of commerce should be the dominating force and that Governments are just kids in a sandbox, trying to find the bigger stick.
Bads: He does not care about the how, only progress, he rejects all forms of furtherment and wishes to simply let this progress as they will. He seeks no betterment.

Fallout is a truly intrinsic and deep set of stories that capture and challenge all who play them. I myself find that I am often conflicted about who I agree with! All of the factions are quite powerful in their own rights and make it very hard to decide, what is TRULY right and wrong.

I.E I adore fallout as it is quite possibly the most mentally and emotionally challenging form of entertainment I have ever had the privilege to enjoy.