You don't think the fact that your entire argument by this point relies on what Eden doesn't say to the player (again remembering that we know Eden is more than capable of deceit and is desperately trying to convince you to work for him) puts your theory on rather shaky ground? It's pretty clear what the ending slide is describing and it seems quite familiar to what the plan was in Fallout 2.


Which is nice. But I think it'd also be nice if the Brotherhood of Steel didn't appear in Fallout 3. Yet this doesn't change the fact that they do appear in Fallout 3.

And again Bethesda did originally plan for Eden to just be a copy of Richardson's consciousness so yeah I think it's pretty clear what his plan was supposed to represent.

Again. Fair point. But one would assume if Anna, for instance, was an asset only they wouldn't give her free run of the place and a warm bed and such.

They'd stick a damn gun to her head and tell her to put up or shut up. Anna seems quite happy where she is, so I assume she's not mistreated.

Really Stiggs isn't either. He just hates working for the Enclave and building robots that kill for them.


Very well could be. I still don't really think that's in conflict with what I'm saying.


I'll have to run through Eden's dialogue again to see what I can find. I even remember from the onset when I first played the game that I was under the impression it was all mutants. Human or otherwise.


Except Bethesda has never been constant on motivations and personalities. So why go with one version and not the other?

Bethesda wrote Eden's dialogue sure as they wrote the words on that slide. Which they ignored eventually.

But I thought that there were only ghouls at these death camps sites? Because not massacring humans is Autumn's deal and Eden had left the administration of these camps entirely in Autumn's hands or was continuing his lie to Autumn about being brought around to his way of thinking.

Again I am not saying it is fact. I wouldn't call it the truth. It is a theory and IMO a damned good one. One I can live with. So next time another topic about how plothole filled an crappy Fallout 3 is, I can say "well here are some possible ideas" instead of just rightfully pointing out how God awful it really is.

I will also point out that you are also speculating and passing it off as fact. The fact that you can get any real clear meaning out of Fallout 3 is astonishing and as I pointed out. Lt is using ingame info, such as all of Edens Dialogue.



Again you are speculating on the motivation as much as we are.

Pretty sure the checkpoints were supposed to give purified water and supplies to all the wastelanders that passed the gene tests and to kill or detain all the others. The few wastelanders you do see probably failed the tests or tried to fight.

Because there aren't two different version of Eden on display here. The ending slide does not conflict with Eden as depicted in Fallout 3.

And as we've been over before Eden's dialogue about necessary sacrifices and such is very similar to what Richardson told the Chosen One.

I think it rests on a bit more ground than simply what he doesn't say. He doesn't contradict my theory. That's the only point to draw from. Other support rests on how a few things fall into place when we consider this. Like the damn Enclave radio for instance. He actually has a reason to blare that bloody thing.

Besides that. Did I say I was on completely solid footing and that you guys were completely wrong and I was oh-so-right?

No. That's pretty much just been coming from your end. I'm advocating a theory here. Hey, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. Not a big deal.

To be honest, I really don't give a [censored] either way. If Eden wants to end up killing wastelanders, frankly that won't change anything for my part in liking Eden and the Enclave. Considering I started this with the impression he was.

I've just been reviewing dialogue lately and have been wondering if Eden really was just a carbon-copy Richardson. I'm starting to think he wasn't to a degree. He may have been a bit more moderate.

For instance, Eden's plan only affects the CW. Richardson's was the world. If Eden's planning on taking wastelanders eventually, his plan makes a bit more sense than just nuking a single area and expecting everything to be well and good.





Actually that claim on the wiki is un-cited and has never been. So I've often wondered if its true or not.

Again I am not saying they wouldn't kill humans. I am saying they would kill the criminal humans, the slavers, raider and cannibals.

How exactly? How is the ending slide talking about the preservation of pure humanity interspersed with scenes of human wastelanders dying speculation on my part? And please show me where in Eden's dialogue he talks about this humane attitude towards wastelanders you and Andronicus have discovered. It doesn't exist.


Again explain to me how Bethesda's ending slide is speculation. I do use speculation to reinforce my argument for instance the fact that Eden was initially planned to be a copy of Richardson's consciousness strikes me as a pretty big tell as to what he was supposed to represent but don't confuse that with direct evidence like the ending slide.

A common misconception a fair number of people were fooled with on their own first play-through as I recall from; it remains however entirely without basis.
The alternative that you are proposing then is that Autumn was in-fact correct in his notion of simply fighting the mutants, because the virus was poor and didn't actually change anything...
That and the fact that you've previously defended your use of these slides in-spite of Broken Steel on previous occassions.

Broken Steel basically breaks every ending except for the Brotherhood and blowing up the purifier endings. Even if you side with the Enclave you wake up in the Citadel and the virus doesn't even kill anyone.

Not exactly. If that was the case, I'd stop advocating this immediately. Because damn be to Autumn. I still think the virus was effective.

My only point on the slide business is that Bethesda is unreliable with coming up with clear-cut motivations and such. Its hard to make a theory on Fallout 3 and not run into something that isn't contradicted or problematic. So when you guys pull out that slide and say "look, here you are completely wrong." I question that a bit. Because I've rarely heard a theory that doesn't have some contradiction on some point. And as I said in a post above, that slide doesn't really contradict anything flat-out. It doesn't directly say "Eden hated wastelanders and wanted them all dead."

Hell the whole game has contradictions. Why wouldn't a single theory?


Take a look at Enclave radio and come up with a reason why he does it.

Then look at his dialogue for instance, and his mention of the wastelanders being "unfortunate" sacrifices and his plan as being a bit "disturbing."

Look: we aren't given much. I mean, how many lines does Eden have? Which is why this is a damn theory.



Again, that whole thing is uncited. I've referred to it before, however its frankly a bit shaky in terms of an actual hard fact.

I've never seen any reference to that aside from that wiki page.

You're going to have to get Lt. to show you the dialogue. I don't have the GECK thing going. But to me the ending slide was removed for a reason the concequences of it no longer matter. In a sense the whole thing should be ignored, after all Bethesda ignored it.



Using a none sited quote on the wiki is your source on that? You know anyone can add [censored] right? Its speculation because you think it matters, that it has meaning. I am speculating that it doesn't. But as my understanding there isn't anything in the game to show he wants to kill all the wastelanders, only that in getting ride of the extreme mutations, the others will die as a result.

I understand you're not trying to claim your theory is the absolute truth it's just that in this case it seems to run directly against what Bethesda put in the game and is based off nothing more than your interpretation of Eden's dialogue.


I've been assuming it's true because I remember running across on it on an NMA news article some time after Fallout 3's release long before I ever read it on the wiki. I don't have any clue what the original source was though.

Correction: put in a single shaky slide.

And as I said above, it really doesn't even directly contradict that.



What the heck else would it be based off of mate?

The only thing we have of Eden is his dialogue. And not much of it. But it also fills in a few plotholes and thats worth something to me at least.


Then why would the wiki not cite it?

Not saying you are wrong or lying, but I'm still a bit skeptical. That's all.

Besides, that was scrapped. Lots of things get scrapped in development. Perhaps because they, for instance, send the wrong message.

Well when it comes to wiki, I have spent time on Nukapedia and it is a great place for info and the Vault I am sure is good as well.

But I have found if you dig hard enough with some questionable sources. You will find it was put there by a high ranking member and as such is often seen as fact for that reason.

One such example was someone said the BoS have a Chapter in Montana. I removed it. It got placed back. So I removed it again. It got put back. So I asked people who and why this info was there and the source. I got back "well so and so put it there" and sure enough a high-ranking well known person. There was no source and it is false and I finally had it removed.

I am sure such things are rare, but it does happen.

Presumably for the same reason he thinks talking about baseball is effective propaganda in a burned-out post nuclear wasteland or commits suicide based off a non-sequitur. He's a barely rational computer program completely out of touch with reality possessed of a psychotic obsession with being the President of the USA. Previous presidents used to address their citizens on the radio so he'll do the same thing.


Richardson says similar lines to the Chosen One. Nothing in Eden's dialogue supports this position you've taken beyond the fact that he doesn't explicitly say the same things Richardson did about needing to kill everyone because wastelanders are inevitably a threat even though the ending slide demonstrates that preserving pure humanity was also the outcome of Eden's plan.



Like I said above I'm sure I saw it in an NMA news article some time after Fallout 3 was released and I really don't know why someone would just make that up on the wiki. Since I haven't had any luck tracking down the original article however I won't refer to it anymore.

You should know Andronicus that I dont't advocate theories, I advocate ideas I consider tandamount to facts due to their unshakable foundation in established canon; I can't help but feel that this attempt to repaint an insidious work of evil like Eden as a "moderate" isn't in some dur part to your questioning of the Enclave's morality as of late.

You see Andronicus. Even Okie reached that conclusion about Enclave radio, it's the entertainment outlet of a derranged machine which has no morality.

I also want to add and I am sure I already mentioned this. I know its a theory, not saying it is canon. Just thinking of some ideas here and for now I see somethings that could support it.

Given that it's Bethesda's own assessment of their character I think it's a pretty useful piece of evidence in interpreting Eden and his plan.


What he actually does and the consequences of his actions? Given how unclear so many of the characters and concepts in Fallout 3 often are I think anytime Bethesda offers their view on such things to be pretty useful and undeniably correct in determining how they were meant to be seen in game.


God only knows. I don't understand why anyone would make it up out of whole cloth either. Like I said I won't bring it up anymore but I'm positive I've seen it elsewhere.

Which falls on the argument that Eden is an irrational nincompoop of a hard-drive and does things that are illogical and stupid.

Just as Autumn is an irrational brainwashed moron with split personalities.

And Elder Lyons is an idiot with no sense of tactical command.


Forgive me if I'd like to add a little sense to at least one of the characters with a theory of mine. Eden actually having a reason to blurt things out to the wastelanders seems far more sensical than assuming he, along with every other character in Fallout 3 is fundamentally broken.


It works for me, and Styles as well apparently. Say what you like.


Richardson also didn't run a radio-program for the wastelanders, or not talk rhetoric about an "us" versus "them" mentality when speaking of the wastelanders.


Except this is also within the context of the game, and does not explicitly refute what I'm saying. Its a poetical end-slide that was eventually ignored anyway, not a unquestionable "from on high" judgment from an outside developer interview.






Truly. I don't give a [censored]. Which is why I'm going to bow out of this debate. No point in continuing.

Say what you like squire, at least it isnt over 3am your end .

Well its over 9pm here in the midwest. An I've got things to do school-wise that I've put off for far too long for this debate. Which truthfully I don't have much of a stake in. If I'm wrong, I'll just go back to saying what I've always said about Eden.

If Eden kills wastelanders, and wants to do so, ah well. Really, I could care less about whether the wastelanders live or die. Morality has nothing to do with it. Its placing an interpretation on Eden's motivations which iron out his character a bit more, doesn't leave him as a bad imitation cookie cutter Richardson, and gives certain things a bit more purpose than simply tacking Eden down to being a moron.

Seems like every leader in Fallout 3 is a moron or has serious personal issues. Which makes me wonder if the east coast of the United States is cursed or something.

Even if he has a reason for his propaganda the fact that he thinks talking about his fictional childhood in Kentucky or discussing baseball teams to be effective propaganda given the state of D.C. speaks for itself concerning his grasp on reality.

I mean yeah at the end of the day it comes to terrible writing and world design on all counts but while I agree we should probably retcon those factors I don't think that means we should reconsider the motivations and personalities of those leaders. While I agree that in canon Eden shouldn't be such a terrible leader as he strikes me in game he should still represent the hardline Enclave ideology that I think it's clear he was meant to demonstrate. I see no reason to change that just because of Bethesda's bad writing.


Yeah because Fallout 2's designers were more competent (with the massive exception of Colin McComb) and not striving to come up with radio station ideas in the first place.


I just don't see any reason to ignore the closest thing to a statement on Eden and his plan that Bethesda is ever going to make.


I do get what you're saying. I just think there's more than sufficient evidence in game to conclude that Eden is basically Richardson 2.0 and that Autumn was supposed to represent the moderate, "moral" Enclave leader in the eyes of Bethesda.