Since no elders out west acknowledge Lyons anymore is it a safe bet to say they won't likely acknowledge his daughter Sarah Lyons either? Because of this I wonder if the BoS detachment in the capital wasteland will become it's own organization and split from the BoS outwest or if eventually it would just cease to exist in the capital wasteland at all. Whats everyone else think?

I dont think that it wasnt they werent aknowledging, I think it was just that the Californian branch pulled support, and then comms went dead.

I think the immediate future would be to attempt to reestablish comms somehow.... Looking for some sort of transport to get back to the west if need be (Liberty Prime, or perhaps an abandoned Enclave Vertibird)

But medium to long term, I think they'd be planning to stay, the east coast has a great amount of tech for the Traditionalists to look for, and I doubt the compassionate members would be willing to abandon their charges.

Fallout 4 backstory: BoS East Coast goes checking out MIT...just a thought.

From what Rothchilde says, it's not that they lost contact, it's that Lyons has cut off contact. He kept in contact with them when he could string them along enough to keep sending reinforcements and materials. But when the Western Elders demanded real answers, he decided pulling the plug was easier than admitting he'd "gone native." Casdin and the others saw that as a breach of their oaths, decided that Lyons was no longer fit to lead, and jumped ship in the middle of the night with as much tech as they could carry.

Its not that the Elders out west dont acknowlegde Elder Lyons or the rest of the Brotherhood in the Captial Wasteland, its just that the Wester Elders cut off all supplies to the Citadel. Read below.




The Californian corridors of Lost Hills erupted in rumor and speculation. Had Owyn Lyons “gone native,” putting the needs of the people of D.C. above those of the Brotherhood itself? Or had a Brotherhood Elder finally exhibited the selfless behavior that should serve as a model for the entire order? Caught in the middle, 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.

So that’s what the stalwart Elder did. The Capital Wasteland division of the Brotherhood of Steel, headquartered in the Citadel, became its own entity: still affiliated with the Brotherhood of Steel on the West Coast, and bound by its laws and customs, but otherwise completely independent.

-Excerpt from Brotherhood of Steel Faction Profile


As for breaking away from the Brotherhood and making their own oginization, thats unlikely. Thats what the Outcasts were about, their the true traitors to the Brotherhood and the Elders out West. Now if you said what could happen to the Outcasts and their journey trying to make it back west, thats something different. Maybe they'd be involved in FO4, making their way out west?

Maybe the Elders would hunt the Outcasts down for some reason? or maybe they meet with the rouge Mid-West Brotherhood and join together?

The Outcasts are not the traitors, Lyons is. He was sent to the East Coast with a specific mission, and he abandoned it. The Outcasts left him and are trying to carry out the original mission and to establish contact with the Lost Hills Elders, in order to receive official authorization to relieve Lyons of command. They're the only true Brotherhood of Steel in the Capital Wasteland.



I don't see why. The Outcasts, unlike both Lyons and the Midwestern Brotherhood are the only ones out east loyal to the Lost Hills Elders.

Whilst I aknowledge what you're saying, I think its a bit extreme. I dont think that Lyons has abandoned his mission, just moved it a little down the priority ladder (hence the continuing work on Liberty Prime, it wasnt exactly in mothballs).

Personaly, I think he was right for doing it. The eastern BOS are going to be there long term, they will need to resupply: Power Armour might be good, but it wont feed you. The long term survival of the Eastern BOS does depend somewheat on goodwill - Goodwill from Traders, food producers, etc. As they get established, they can start some manufacturing capability, but even that needs traders to work.

The Western Brotherhood for all its isolationism, does trade with the hub after all.

The only other major option would be... To become a raiding outfit and take what they want (even if they're raiding raiders to appease their concence, this would require a large amount of resoruces).

To me, this doesnt make the Outcasts Trators... Just short sighted.

It may be after the bomb, but sadly economics will survive with the Cockroaches.

In the Fallout PNP guidebook, there was a gameplay tip for anyone wanting to play a Brotherhood of Steel character in terms of psychology. I read it a long while back, but it was pretty memorable to me.

"if a group of Brotherhood knights appears to be helping some less fortunate people, their motives are not altruistic. If you encounter one in the wastes, they are most likely on some kind of mission."

Don't forget that the Brotherhood ideology is somewhat of a religion and these people have been indoctrinated into this since they were kids. So sure they can trade with outsiders to survive, but that's just a means to an end. The preservation of technology always comes first, and putting that off to help the outsiders is almost like a sin against their "god." Granted, this way of thinking has been watered down over the years (Midwest Brotherhood and Elder Lyons as evidence). But yes, it is extreme because it's practically their "religion," and that's why the Western Brotherhood and the Outcasts are at odds with the other cells.

Frankly, while I don't fully agree with Bethesda's take on the Eastern Brotherhood, I'm hoping they explore this possible conflict situation in future DLC's. Would love to see Knights against Knights over what the "True Brotherhood" is about.

Doesn't anyone else find the whole Arthur Maxson situation at least a tad strange. They send the decendent of their founder halfway across the country to enemy infested ruins, to protect him from politics at home? Makes very little sence to me. I mean the most danger he would be in back west might be from would be assassains, but the same is true back east considering the spliter factions fighting and thats with out considering the super mutant meance.

I think he will be used be Bethesda to change the BoS completely into the knights of the wastes they so desperately want them to be, and to add an air of authetisety to this fairly redundent change in the nature of the organisation. It was a streach to believe that anyone would have taken a 6 year old with them across the wastes, and looking at the age diffrence if he went with them he was a baby. If he was sent later then who came with him, not even a spy for the western brotherhood.

Just wait either FO4 or FO5 Arthur will rise in the ranks declare his respect and admaration for Elder Lyons and insist the rest of the organisation follow suite.


And if the later is true then why would the WBoS entrust a man who for all intent and purpose refuses to co-operate and obviously has his own agenda with a child who when grows to advlthood could have some considerable political clout.

I really think the ball was dropped on the Brotherhood, and it all seems to be just to make them something they where not intended to be. I was also looking for more links to the BoS in FO2 and where they are now in FO3 but any real information seems very scarce, I could not even find a holodisk detailing their journey (ok thats just a personal want but if its there could you tell me)

Over all I have been saying all along that it is backwards Lyons is the traitor and the outcasts would be considered (and would consider themselves) as true Brotherhood and there is no way they would wear the name outcast like a badge of honour.

Ultimately full of plot and story holes and all so we can have goodly knights of the wastes rather than the more ambevolent BoS from previous games just to further an agenda from the Devs rather than any solid in game canonical reasons

I hear ya man. And I completely agree with everything you said. The inclusion of the Maxson kid was not only unnecessary (if they wanted to pay homage to the Maxson lineage, a holotape would've sufficed), it was completely illogical. "Here, take our founder's direct descendant and bring him across the wastes into unexplored and most likely dangerous territory."



Yup. They're going to be sold as the resident "cool group" in future games. Like Star Wars' Jedi.

At the very least I hope the Devs treat the Outcasts and WBOS (if they ever appear), with fairness and dignity. And not as the next power-armored villains after the Enclave.

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.

Why would the Elders be divided on this issue? They barely have any concern for the people on their backyard, why would they care about people on the other side of the coast?
Mostly hyperthetical admittedly, but the whole issue of being divided is another attempt that the idea that the BoS should step up for the "poor people" already has taken seed with at lest some of the Elders back home.

All true in the context of the game. Again though why a sudden big change of heart from the WBoS? Wouldn't they at lest treat Lyons with suspicion? A more realistic corse of acrion would have been to send someone to relieve Lyons of his command with orders to secure the tech and prepaire it for transport back to the main base. Rather than to throw all the earlier priciples out and the get all divided about it.

There are canon issues however with an Elder coming into being through a field promotion, my main issue with the new BoS is how readly canon will be bent to shoehorn things in

The only thing to say in fairness is that as far as I know not much has been said about the state the WBoS is now in, so that could be anything. Some meantion is made of a possible scism but I bet the infighting is all about the direction the BoS should go in, as some elders take on Lyon's ideas, but again that premese is flawed

Just went and looked up the line to double check. To quote John Maxson, on the subject of the Elders, "Well you see there's four of them and that's about all they can ever agree on. They can't even agree if they want to piss, much less pick a pot to piss in."

That suggests, to me, that the Elders hold some pretty diverse opinions on almost every subject. Given the context of the discussion that line crops up on, my reading of it has always been that some of the Elders are inclined to become involved in the affairs of the rest of the world, but that it's one or two at most - not enough to sway the council. But, at the same time, if someone - say, Lyons - takes the question out of their hands, initially, and just goes and does something, those one or two people may very well be enough to prevent the council from acting against him.

And this is setting aside we don't know how much the makeup of the council has changed in the intervening years.

WIth the Decendant of Maxson - the BOS isnt a monarchy. The decendant of Maxson doesnt get special perks because of his birth, he'd be expected to pull his weight just like everyone else in the order.

Besides, where else to get a ton of battlefield experience than a sojurn to the east coast (and presumedly at the time, back again)

With regards to canon issues with a battlefield promotion to elder, until the BOS constitution or charter is entered into a game, we dont know the rules on how one makes elder. Since the discovery of Liberty Prime at the Pentagon mean that instead of a short term mission, they were looking at a long term stay, they'd need someone with authority to speak for the brotherhood, and act in a manner taking total control - Elder seem appropriate.

I think you're more than likely right Reitsuki, the paralising indecision at the top of the BOS leadership is often forgotten by those making the "Its not canon" argument (who also assume that every member of the organsisation think exactly the same way - which is just crazy).

I realize that dude. But you gotta admit that he wouldn't be just treated as "just another soldier." His fathers and grandfathers all made High Elder, so when he comes of age, there would be some level of reverence, albeit expectation, on him.

As for battlefield experience? From the way he mopes around the Citadel, I don't think they let him out much.



What the...

I think that last comment's uncalled for.

The BoS have been acting a certain way for three games now. Beth comes along, and suddenly they're acting entirely different. So of course, I and a lot of other people who are genuinely interested in this faction have some questions. We weren't trying to force our way of thinking down your throat if that's what it came off as.

I was really enjoying the discussion until now.

Not really. The Midwestern Brotherhood (what I assume you mean by the third game) didn't really act the same way the West Coast Brotherhood did. But just looking at the first two games, and then the third game, I don't think there is the marked changed that some people seem to think there is.

The original Brotherhood had their attitude, and obviously a lot of the "rank and file" Brotherhood were (and are) just fine with that attitude. This attitude is still present in Fallout 3. Lyons isn't very traditional, but some of his men both are and were. The most extreme example of this of course are the Outcasts, which some people like to consider the "true brotherhood", but you can still see it in some of the loyal Brothers... Paladin Bael, for example, among others.

But there are - as I've pointed out - hints in the first two games that this attitude was not, in fact, universal. But, as a relatively isolated, close-knit, tradition-bound organization it would be impossible for enough of the "radicals" to get any real power. But when conservative, tradition-bound people are confronted with a threat to their ways, they tend to react by stagnating even further. This results in the situation John Maxson had to deal with: A council that was so divided on many issues, paralyzed by an inability to reach a consensus on anything.

Now you have the East Coast Brotherhood, being somewhat removed from the direct oversight of the Lost Hills Elders, forced to make a certain amount of autonomous decisions. Lyons, while initially a conservative, traditional Brotherhood member, gets influenced by what he experiences in the east. He begins to exceed the scope of his original mission, and this causes a commotion among the Lost Hills elders. On one side, you would have those that felt, like Casdin, that Lyons was betraying the Brotherhood. On the other hand, you probably would have those who were more sympathetic to Lyons ideas. Once again, the council is deadlocked - the "radicals" refuse to condemn Lyons, but the traditionalists refuse to support him. End result, a compromise that really pleases no one: A hands off, "We'll see what happens, but not provide any further aid" policy.

Now I grant you some of this is speculation on my part, since we hardly have, for example, minutes of the Lost Hills Elders meetings on the issue. But this fits with how the Brotherhood seemed to me in the first games. Or to put it another way, I don't see the East Coast brotherhood as "suddenly acting entirely different"... I see it, in a sense, as a magnification, or perhaps culmination, of a division that has existed in the Brotherhood since the first game.

They do mostly agree on the tenets of the BoS though (what a scribe is and so on), although when it came to dealing with outside threats and so on that the indeciciveness would come in. For members of the BoS to greatly change its tact on helping outsiders does take a suspention of disbelief that they have not really liked what the BoS stood for.

Reasonable assumptions on your part, but not fully supported by either FO1 or FO2 and not really touched at all by FO3, in fact we have no real idea what the WBoS is upto

Pretty much it, makes it hard to do anything but make assumptions

@agent_c
Maxson's importance


Also note the known High Elders are:


Notice a certain name cropping up more than once?

I think that makes him a bit more important than an avarage Initiate.

Why would it have to be an Elder to provide leadership, a high ranking Paladin would serve this function out in the field (there are 4 ranks of Paladin and using the head Paladin could be seen as overkill when a Senior Paladin would serve just fine), Elders are Paladins who reach a certain age, and are no longer fit enough for the field work. Paladins still assume leadership roles when out on the field and Senior Paladins do have the authority to speak for the brotherhood, and act in a manner taking total control. A non canonical promotion to Elder only serves to legitimize Lyons as a moving force in BoS politics, by thinking this way it shows a lack of understanding of the BoS structure and what all the ranks actually mean in the first place. Sure a lot of the final say rests with the council but they are not the be all and end all of authority in the BoS.

Changing the direction of the BoS is fine if thats what they really want to do but so far its very forced and shoehorned in, and leaves a huge big whole in the overall BoS story and background

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 )

Well obviously I don't think the quote could be taken so literally as to think they disagree on basic things, no. But you said it yourself - dealing with outside threats was a point where the council was divided. I don't think it takes any "suspension of disbelief" to carry a disagreement on dealing with outside threats to a disagreement on their responsibility as a significant "power" in the area (Whether or not they wanted to be one, they are).

Sorry thats where the theory is flawed, just because the Elders could not decide on the best course of action to deal with the Supermutants does not mean that the Elders where not happy with the direction of the brotherhood, they have always held to the basic priciple

They just didn't think the Supermutants where a threat to them so could care less...

So after years of indoctine (which works really well IRL and is not as easy to break as some beileve) and very little outside input (most members are born in the Brotherhood), one day half the Elders decied that maybe helping is right way after all enough to cause a scisim? I think that is very unlikly given the time scales involved. Ultimatly it does not really matter (although dbatte is fun) as Bethesda are obviously going to turn them into herioc hereo knights protecting the weak of the wastes, wahtever any of us think.

One big reason to send something precious away from you is to protect it from something you can't get away from. Maxon isn't a prince in waiting, but he's a living link to the BoS's history. Living links can mean a lot to people. Look at how many children of dead famous people are invited to ceremonies commemorating things their parents or grandparents were even tangentially involved in. If the Elders sent Maxon to a recognized Elder in the Capital Wasteland, it was because things out west weren't safe for the boy.

Who would want to kill a living link to history? People who want that history to be written over. The whispers and speculation didn't happen in the ruling council chambers, they happened in the hallways. That means the debate happened in all ranks of the BoS. People who though Lyons was the future of the BoS and people who through he was a rogue probably got into some pretty heated arguments. Also notice that the Elders are referred to as "making the only decision they could." Not "making the decision they thought was best." That suggests to me that by game time, there is a good sized rift in the West Coast BoS. Maybe it's political, like Left versus Right, or maybe it's shooting, like White versus Red during the fall of the Tzars. I think it's more political, which is why, to protect Maxon from even the hint of danger, they sent him to the only Elder that they knew wasn't in touch with the western factions... The Elder they had firmly shunned contact with... Elder Lyons.

The two questions written in the quote are the questions I think the Western BoS is asking itself during the time of Fallout 3. They've probably realized they need to change. To address the concerns about the BoS in future Fallouts being different from the BoS of Fallout 1 and 2, it makes perfect sense that they change between games. Living things change and adapt as they grow. The BoS has got to change. When your groups packs enough fire power that a small band can level a city full of raiders... It's inevitable. There's a chunk of the BoS that is thinking about nation building. And the Order of The Quill probably has quite a bit more info on civics than old Abraham Washington.

The old BoS you love from the old games is still out there, stagnating, in FO3. In the future Fallout games, you'll see them die off.

I wasn't being picky on purpose but your argument hinges on how much the Elders agreed or not in the first instance and I don't think they argued much about what the BoS stands for. Again I would say they only care enough about their power in any area in so far as it helps then achieve their ends, once achieved they would clear off with what they came for.

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.



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.

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.

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.

I think you misinterpreted the comment.

Think of any organisation in the world... Any one. A political party, a charity, a religous movement any with a decent number of members, lets say a few hundred.

Can you say, with 100% honesty that you think 100% of members of that organisation agree 100% with the policies of that organisation? Do all Catholics agree 100% with the vaticans position on everyting (for example)?

No. This is why polical parties in part change some policies when a new leader is elected - although they support the same general cause, they have their own ideas about what is the right way. To go back to the Catholasism argument, The current pope has a different focus to JP II, and JP II had a different agenda to JP I.

So, we have the brotherhood of steel, a largeish organisation, can anyone say with any reasonable argument that every single member of the brotherhood of steel agreess 100% with all of the current policies of the brotherhood of steel?


Diplomacy is what happens when one person has a big stick, and the a second doesnt. Politics is what happens when any 3 people get into a room.

Hey Reitsuki, I think all your points are completely valid. I'm not trying to force canon down your throat, but like you, I've had my own interpretation of the Brotherhood based on the first three games. An interpretation that had remained untouched for nearly a decade. And then Fallout 3 comes out, and the representation of the Brotherhood is different from what I've had in mind all these years. Naturally, I get confused, and a bit upset, as anyone would over a character or organization that they love so much.

I like your explanation that this could be the culmination of a division that has existed since the first game. Perhaps the Vault Dweller strikes a nerve, and they see that working with outsiders can truly be beneficial? Yes, I've even considered this.

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.

Once again, not trying to be condescending and saying that the new Brotherhood "goes against canon." I love this organization and just want it to be given justice. Even if our views differ, I appreciate the thought you guys have put into their motivations, and am just happy to be talking about the Brotherhood at all.

EDIT:
@ Agent_C

Sorry. Thought it was a hit against my "like a religion" post. Because I was somewhat quoting canon and stating that the Brotherhood would unlikely abandon their primary mission. No hard feelings?