Future of the Eastern BoS Detachment? : Fallout Series Discussion

» Fri May 27, 2011 2:54 am

With all due respect, and knowing the inherent danger of trying to argue with Ausir, I have to say I don't agree. The Lost Hills Elders know about what Lyons is doing. They don't agree with it, but they also haven't condemned him for it, they just aren't going to aid him. Back in Fallout 1, General Maxson himself said something to the effect of "I might want to help, but all the council can agree on is how many of them there are", or words to that effect. I think the Lost Hills Elders are probably divided between wanting to support Lyons and wanting to condemn him, and as a result are forced to essentially do nothing.

Casdin and his ilk, however, while ostensibly loyal to their "mission", abandoned their brothers and stole from the order. The Elders had never relieved Lyons of command, and because they hadn't even formally condemned his actions, there was no question of legitimacy of command. Casdin is a mutineer and a traitor, no matter how noble his intentions may have been, and his outcasts are no more the "True Brotherhood" than the Midwestern branch is.

Some quotes:

Arthur Maxson:

I was sent to the Citadel many years ago, to be fostered by Elder Lyons. But that was before the Western Elders lost, um... faith... in the Elder.

Casdin:

The Brotherhood came out here to recover technology from the eastern cities and bases. If Lyons won't do it, then we will.

And when we resume contact with the Western Elders, Lyons is going to be put in his place.

Rothchild:

Lines of communication were severed years ago. The Western Elders have washed their hands of us.

As loyal as I am to the man, I can't overlook the fact that he disobeyed orders, and it cost us.

The West Coast cut us off completely, once they saw what was going on. So now we're on our own. No communications, no reinforcements.

Lyons:

The Western Elders cease to acknowledge my existence. Some of my own people have even gone Outcast.

To me it's pretty clear that the Western Elders, when they learned about Lyons' disobedience, considered him rogue and severed all contact with him, declaring his whole detachment as pretty much lost. If they knew that Lyons' second in command disagreed with him and was ready to assume leadership over the attachment if ordered to do so (obviously something that Lyons likely never disclosed to the Elders, since he was the one in control of the communications), I think the situation could have looked differently.

» Fri May 27, 2011 2:11 am

I hope elder (wan k er) lyons dies a horrible painful slow death, me myself prefer the outcasts as they stick to their mission, and they pay me. :tops:

» Fri May 27, 2011 9:31 am

But it doesn't mean they were happy, either. Maxson isn't saying "Ya know, I was just plum dumbfounded, those old geezers always got along so well before this whole Super Mutant issue came up". Clearly this was not the first issue they disagreed on, not by a long shot.

I can agree with that but what they may or may not agree on is subject to speculation I'm afraid

That would be "indoctrination", and while it works, it also fails left and right, witness how many people in China rebel against the government, how many people turn atheist/pagan/agnostic out of deeply religious backgrounds, etc.

Not as many people rebel in China as you may think after all the goverment still holds a lot of sway over the people, if the people where that rebellious the goverment would fail, so its not all that widespread. People do indeed rebel against upbring there are just as many who stick with it or return to it after the fact. I'm not saying indoctrination is unbreakable but don't underestemate how powerful it is.

And your own argument defeats itself - very little outside input? Maybe on the west coast, but Lyons probably had more "real world" experience than any Lost Hills elder, exposed to a world that was basically completely without governing bodies, unlike the (actually fairly well recovering) west coast.

I meant it in terms that the WBoS Elders are unlikly to have been exposed to many ideals outside of what they already knew, nearly all BoS members are born into the BoS, its unlikly there where any seeds of discontentment about the way things where done.
The issue isn't that Lyon's should not have gained social awareness, more that if Bethesda wanted an offshoot of the BoS who are all good knightly like, then thats fine but its more than likly it would be a breakaway group not a new standard for the rest of the BoS to follow. However Ausir's quotes show that indeed Lyon's may have to do just that, although I doubt it, I think the Maxson kid was sent to the east to give levrage to the change in future games, he was sent to the east (and all indications point to he was sent ofter Lyons arrived due to the fact that Lyons arrived before you where born and the kid is younger than you, which leads to the question why they didn't also send someone to resume command sort of blows the whole Lyons can't be replaced theory out of the water) I think as a tool for the future so when he does reach the point of High Elder he will change the BoS to fall into line with Lyons vision. Its not really what they are doing with the BoS its the way its being done again too may holes in the story

Nor was it a "one day" decision. The East Coast mission was ongoing for a long time before Lyons started to change; it seems like it was a very gradual progression.

All well and good for Lyons but I still maintain there is no way that Lyons would be allowed to maintain control, even his own second in command is not happy with the situation and his been there since the begining.

I hope the BoS DLC actually answers some of thee questions and sheds some more light on theoverall situation, but I would still place money that Maxson becomes a loyal Lyons man and changes the BoS forever in a future game.

edit

I'm not saying that the Brotherhood should remain isolationist forever. If the Brotherhood changes into a truly altruistic organization, I'm all for it, but ONLY if it follows a logical story progression. What I do not want is for Beth to use the Brotherhood as the poster boys for Fallout 3. To have them suddenly have a complete change of heart as another way of drawing in fans (who wouldn't want to join a group of power-armored knights set on saving the world). Which, as of now, is what I see them doing. The reason I play games, watch movies, and read books, is to follow the journeys of their characters. In almost every case, the character undergoes a change from the trials that he faced. If this has happened to the Brotherhood, then great, it opens up a new path for future stories. But I just wish that Beth would flesh out the Eastern Brotherhood back story, add more depth, and not leave it to the speculations of their fans. Because with what little info they supply in the game, the change ends up seeming abrupt.

pretty much sums it up

» Fri May 27, 2011 7:12 am

To me it's pretty clear that the Western Elders, when they learned about Lyons' disobedience, considered him rogue and severed all contact with him, declaring his whole detachment as pretty much lost. If they knew that Lyons' second in command disagreed with him and was ready to assume leadership over the attachment if ordered to do so (obviously something that Lyons likely never disclosed to the Elders, since he was the one in control of the communications), I think the situation could have looked differently.

If they had wanted Lyons relieved of command, they could have done so. The Brotherhood is too much a military organization to just throw a tiff over someone abandoning their mission, there are procedures to be followed if you truly think a person is deserting or going rogue - the very first of which would be to put someone else in command of the mission. Particularly after having lost the Midwestern detachment, either the Brotherhood is terminally stupid and deserves to have large detachments go rogue, or they would have come up with procedures in the event of another group doing the same thing. Although they cut communications, there's no evidence whatsoever that they tried to relieve Lyons of command or to initiate any sort of emergency protocol.

But even if we except that the Western brotherhood is universal in their condemnation of Lyons - something I think would actually be against canon - that doesn't make the Outcasts the "True Brotherhood". They're a bunch of mutineers and deserters.

A soldier is expected to disobey orders that they feel are illegal. In the context of the brotherhood, Casdin felt that Lyons was giving illegal orders - all well and good, but that didn't give him the right to just desert, and it certainly didn't give him the right to steal from the Brotherhood. Whatever happens, for the West Coast Brotherhood to retain any semblance of being a properly disciplined organization rather than the personal plaything of a bunch of crotchety old men, Casdin is bound for a firing squad. Possibly more than just Casdin.

» Fri May 27, 2011 2:46 am

I can agree with that but what they may or may not agree on is subject to speculation I'm afraid

We're in a thread called "Future of the Eastern BoS Detachment?". I think speculation has to be expected.

Not as many people rebel in China as you may think after all the goverment still holds a lot of sway over the people, if the people where that rebellious the goverment would fail, so its not all that widespread. People do indeed rebel against upbring there are just as many who stick with it or return to it after the fact. I'm not saying indoctrination is unbreakable but don't underestemate how powerful it is.

First of all, I don't think we can discount the effective nature of brutally killing rebels, which the Chinese government has a history of doing, in keeping them silent. It doesn't mean they agree with the government, just that they prefer not to be executed.

Nor am I saying that every single person is going to have a divergent opinion, but your contention seemed to be that it was all but impossible for them to have a divergent opinion - something neither true in reality nor supported by in-game canon.

I meant it in terms that the WBoS Elders are unlikly to have been exposed to many ideals outside of what they already knew, nearly all BoS members are born into the BoS, its unlikly there where any seeds of discontentment about the way things where done.

Even in a completely closed system, people eventually start to have differing opinions. It's human nature.

The issue isn't that Lyon's should not have gained social awareness, more that if Bethesda wanted an offshoot of the BoS who are all good knightly like, then thats fine but its more than likly it would be a breakaway group not a new standard for the rest of the BoS to follow. However Ausir's quotes show that indeed Lyon's may have to do just that, although I doubt it, I think the Maxson kid was sent to the east to give levrage to the change in future games, he was sent to the east (and all indications point to he was sent ofter Lyons arrived due to the fact that Lyons arrived before you where born and the kid is younger than you, which leads to the question why they didn't also send someone to resume command sort of blows the whole Lyons can't be replaced theory out of the water) I think as a tool for the future so when he does reach the point of High Elder he will change the BoS to fall into line with Lyons vision. Its not really what they are doing with the BoS its the way its being done again too may holes in the story

We have no proof one way or another what effect Lyons actions will have on the West Coast brotherhood. I think it's entirely too soon to say that Lyons group represents Bethesda's "new interpretation" of the Brotherhood - as Ausir points out, Lyons view is hardly universally shared. That having been said...

Lets work on the premise the Brotherhood does change. Why is this automatically "wrong"? Organizations change. The Brotherhood has been around (In one sense or another, if not in name) since the War. That's two hundred years. It's evolved from a tiny enclave of military survivors and related individuals to an organization that probably has a wider-felt presence than the remains of the US Government. At some point, it becomes hard to accept the notion that it wouldn't start to change, in one direction or another, particularly since the Fallout world doesn't make maintaining direct control of it's more distant branches easy. I mean, hell, extending the line of logic, at some point the world is going to -really- recover. Oh, not to just like it was pre-war, but to a point of equivalent development in it's own way. And then probably one day they'll nuke themselves into oblivion again. At some point during all of this, the Brotherhood is going to wind up changing. That's just the way the world works.

Bah. Too early in the morning for a long argument, and I think we're starting to argue in circles. I guess my real point is this: Time passes and things change. You can argue about canon all you want, but at some point logic dictates something is going to change. Not to be overly dramatic (or movie quoting), but change is the one constant in the universe. It's not like Bethesda is retconning the Brotherhood into always having been some Knights in Shining Armor organization - they've clearly put some thought into the change we're seeing, even if it hasn't all been revealed to us yet.

» Fri May 27, 2011 3:22 am

A soldier is expected to disobey orders that they feel are illegal. In the context of the brotherhood, Casdin felt that Lyons was giving illegal orders - all well and good, but that didn't give him the right to just desert, and it certainly didn't give him the right to steal from the Brotherhood. Whatever happens, for the West Coast Brotherhood to retain any semblance of being a properly disciplined organization rather than the personal plaything of a bunch of crotchety old men, Casdin is bound for a firing squad. Possibly more than just Casdin.

I'd say that it's Lyons who is the deserter here, as he disobeyed direct orders from the West Coast Elders. Casdin did not desert the Brotherhood, he deserted the mutineers and tries to return under the command of his rightful superiors, but is not able to contact them. Casdin did not steal from the Brotherhood, he stole from the deserters.

It is ridiculous to say that if a commander commits mutiny, and his soldiers desert him, trying to return to the army they swore an oath to, they are to be considered deserters themselves, because they should have obeyed the mutineer commander no matter what. Certainly Casdin himself is sure that Lyons will be put to his place when they resume contact with the Elders.

If they had wanted Lyons relieved of command, they could have done so. The Brotherhood is too much a military organization to just throw a tiff over someone abandoning their mission, there are procedures to be followed if you truly think a person is deserting or going rogue - the very first of which would be to put someone else in command of the mission.

It is likely that Lyons and/or people loyal to him controlled the communication with the West Coast Elders, and even if such an order came, Casdin was not aware of it.

» Fri May 27, 2011 6:11 am

I'd say that it's Lyons who is the deserter here, as he disobeyed direct orders from the West Coast Elders. Casdin did not desert the Brotherhood, he deserted the mutineers and tries to return under the command of his rightful superiors, but is not able to contact them. Casdin did not steal from the Brotherhood, he stole from the deserters.

It is ridiculous to say that if a commander commits mutiny, and his soldiers desert him, trying to return to the army they swore an oath to, they are to be considered deserters themselves, because they should have obeyed the mutineer commander no matter what. Certainly Casdin himself is sure that Lyons will be put to his place when they resume contact with the Elders.

Not to be cliche, but military organization is not a democracy. A military commander in theater is expected to adapt his orders as the situation demands. Even if we assume that Lyons disobeyed orders (arguable, since we don't know the exact wording of any orders issued), that doesn't automatically give Casdin any authority - and it definitely doesn't give him authority to betray the rank-and-file members of the Brotherhood, which he did when he deserted and stole important technology from them. That will be what condemns him, not his disagreement with Lyons. Refusing to obey orders or relieving Lyons of command would have been insubordination or mutiny, depending on how far he had taken it. That would be bad enough - but treason is even worse.

It is likely that Lyons and/or people loyal to him controlled the communication with the West Coast Elders, and even if such an order came, Casdin was not aware of it.

It doesn't take any great amount of technology to contact the West Coast. The shortwave radio equipment you find lying all over the DC Ruins would be more than adequate for the task. If you want to start assigning unproven, insidious conspiracy theories to people (Like Lyons deliberately covering up an order for Casdin to take command), I think it's far more likely that reason the Outcasts are still "trying" to establish contact is either that the Lost Hills Elders refuse to deal with mutineers, or that Casdin suspects he will be in deep trouble if he ever resumes contact and is deliberately doing whatever he can to avoid re-establishing contact.

But no such order was given... From the Bethesda writeup:

the ruling Elders made the only decision they could – they would still recognize Elder Lyons as a leader of the Brotherhood of Steel, and the Citadel as their D.C. headquarters. But all support from the West Coast was thereby cut off. If Lyons wanted to pursue his own agenda on the East Coast, he would do it alone.

» Fri May 27, 2011 11:22 am

I knew this would come back to bite me. Yes, the MWBOS is more open to outsiders and accepts outsiders into their ranks than the WBOS. But listening to the mission briefings, there was still that air of superiority over the outsiders, as well as underlying xenophobia and disdain. They weren't as altruistic as the EBOS. Every time they "helped" people, it was for purely selfish reasons in order to further their goals. Heck, after completing a mission in one city, "three extermination squads were dispatched to Macomb to remove the assorted "riffraff". Those who weren't killed paid back the Brotherhood's "generosity" by serving in labor camps." (ref: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Macomb )

I actually liked the Midwestern Brotherhood much more than Lyons' band of knights in shinying armor. They aren't a bunch of dog-[censored] evil bastards, but they aren't the saviours of the wasteland either. They are proactive? Yes. They acept outsiders in their ranks? Yes. Are they a bunch of do-gooders? Nope. Are they a bunch of xenophobic bastards? HELL YES.

Their way of dealing was to ask for supplies and fresh young recruits in exchange for protection from raiders or worse. And they searched constantly for technology and fought many enemies, like the Calculator and the Super Mutants. Simple, intelligent, obvious. Its much better than Fallout 3's strange BOS.

» Fri May 27, 2011 5:13 am

Yes, the Midwestern Brotherhood also deviates from what the original West Coast Brotherhood stands for, but does it in a more realistic way than goody-two-shoes Lyons.

» Fri May 27, 2011 3:21 am

When Paladin Lyons set out with a BoS detatchment to the East Coast he had no idea what he could find. The East Coast was hit the worst in the great war so finding anything remotely useful was probably not highly expected. But when they found the old Pentagon and with it lots of Power Armor, probably tons of weaponry and Liberty Prime it wasnt a matter of simply packing up and shipping this stuff back west. I would have been logistically impossible to carry out.