Mr. Enclave I know your a fan of Enclave, but their reasoning for killing mass amounts of people are no better than Hitlers. Both thought they d make the world a better place. Both are still evil. I talked to Eden I asked every question I could. He sounded like in his comp. chips it was a great idea, but killing all those innocent people is evil he just didn t know it. He was blinded by the plan.

I can see how you could roll play with CL or Enclave but they r DR. EVIL EVIL EVIL EVIL

Eden was a piss poor leader, talk to some real Enclave (Richardson) before you form an opinion. Hitler's genocide of all of those who endangered racial purity or whatever are on tangentally connected with the Enclave, who don't hate mutants because. I believe that in the grand scheme of things, in time spans of centuries, that the Enclave would make the world a better place.

You cannot formulate an accurate opinion on The Enclave unless you have played firsthand Fallout 2 and exhausted every dialouge option you can get with them, otherwise you will only be as biased as you are right now.

Eden is not the 'voice' of the entire Enclave, Fallout 2 had a better view on it other than just blatantly being painted as evil as Fallout 3 would lead you to believe. Innocents will always have to die for change and will always die in war, you cannot change that fact.

I also realize your bias is never going to go away in this discussion, as you just blatantly say "THEY EVIL EVIL EVIL".

No, they're not. They are not inherently evil. If the Enclave's plan were to succeed, in other words had the Curling 13 virus been deployed, America would have arguably been a much better place. No war (since only the Enclave remain), no mutants, no mutation, no more scrounging for food, and no more horrific mutilations by mutant animals or crazed humans. Eden's plan in Fallout 3 was based of this idea and followed along the same lines.

CL is no more evil than a variety of civilizations throughout history. Take the Wallachian Vlad "the Impaler" who became the basis for the famous "Dracula". He impaled and tortured many of his people (and those of his enemies the turks, who he fought against) who he felt had done wrong or been a political threat. Yet he is revered in Romania as a national hero. Why? Because he kept order in a turbulant time of corruption and crime and strove to keep his country independent, through the use of harsh methods.

Can t talk about cl in my post promised I wouldn t I don t think useing Hitler as an example like I have is grounds to get a post closed.

Now religion yeah thats why I only touched on the middle east thing. Then I stopped talking about it.

If that guy wants to pm me ill talk middle east with him all day, but it it would be bad to talk about it on the board. It would count as politics or religion. Hitler is kind of like ancient history. So I don t see how I wrong there. The way I was useing him.

Hitler is real world politics and ideals, we arn't allowed to talk about him.
Same with religion, and I never brought that up but you did.
There is nothing wrong with talking about a real world area or country, that does not count as politics or religion.

Really???? go to the 188 I killed the gun runner guy under the bridge. To make them mad. I was like 75yds away on the ground on the side of the bridge closest to Vegas. Try it. I was low level so I couldn t one shot kill them. If your guy is jacked up use a 9 or something.

I said positioned ncr troops. mean ones that r poted near something to use for cover. Enclave used those check point barriers all the time for cover.

CL Centurions at Hoover stay behind and snipe NCR soldiers while the infantry charge head on, so I don't see any difference.

Come on LT. dont pull reality out now. They could have been titanium with cevlar sp?? coating from some place they scaveged in AZ while getting all those tribes. I don t think they d have actual Roman shields. Bullets would go right through, and your guy 99 times out of 100 would have died from a nearly point blank 9mm
to the head at the begining of the game. You know this stuff.
I like realism as much as the next guy, but there has to be some imagination involved

Well Mr. Enclave we r going to have to do the old agree to disagree on this. I still love you though. Guys I have to go deliver a car real fast I LL BE BACK ( arnold voice)

OHH wow now since I didn t play fo2 I can t form an opinion that killing every person on earth but themselves is evil. No matter how good it sounded. lol I m really going to deliver this car now

Not saying that he shouldn't go look up Richardson, but I don't think Eden is a bad example of an Enclave leader or what the Enclave's essential goals are. Eden's plan was based off of Richardson's and its likely that it would have had a similar effect.

Not on the Enclave which is what you said, Eden barely gives any insight into the Enclave's true motivations and actual plan for recovery.



Yes but come on Andronicus, when it comes to Eden you joined up your own dots on that one, Eden never said that it would do all those things whereas Richardson did. The canonicity is the difference here, we know that Richardson would have prevailed, I actually read back through his quotes and they were within mere hours of victory. Eden is just a little vauge and puts the Project over the people.

Fair enough. My instinct to defend Eden came up however with the “piss poor leader” statement. But you’re right, in terms of giving a better picture of the Enclave’s goals, Richardson is the better bet.

:laugh: I figured to might provoke something, hence why I said it. I do so always enjoy discussing the Enclave as opposed to having to defending them from attack.

Evil is evil. Period.

Lots of evil factions have good seeming slogans or intentions. Does not mean they are not evil.

Just because a faction thinks they are doing it for a good reason, does not mean they are.
Everyone thinks their cause is just, right or the right or best thing. Some just do things to be evil.

You go by their actions.

If you are planning to murder a large ammount of the wasteland like in F3, you are evil.

If you make evil and horrific experiments in vaults, you are evil.

If you conduct mandatory dna testing on the mutated population then kill them and burn the bodies when they are not 'pure', you are evil.
The Enclave are evil.

The Brotherhood Of Steel are good.

The Brotherhood Of Steel are not evil in Fallout 3. And I dought they are evil in other games.

At worst in F3 the Outcasts are mean. But their goal is still good.

They don't mass murder anyone or plan to.

I would say they are neutral at worst and good at best.

The Capital Wasteland BOS indescriminately kill ghouls, they shoot them on sight whether they are feral or not.

They are not completely "good". Funny how everyone seems to conveniently forget that point when they extoll how much "better" the Brotherhood is to the Enclave.

See that ZXhra guy knows what im talking about with evil. I hate to tell you this ZXhra, but if you didn t play the old fallouts your opinion on evil is no good here.

See apparently Richardsons speech is soooo good that what you know in your heart to be evil will be changed.......by a video game.

So if you didn t play fallout 2 you might as well take your post down. Just edit it and take everything off. If you played the old fallouts there you know the difference between good and evil.
Here after all these years I thought I knew, but now Its become clear that fo2 will teach me the real meaning of morality.

No it won't, but it will give you an idea of what the Enclave's goals were/are and give you a better picture of what they were going to accomplish. Fallout 3 is not as good for this because there is almost no interaction with the Enclave aside from shooting them up.

Also I woundn't go by Zaxi's argument as it is filled with various flaws.

I ve said many times that I no problem with their difficulty at the very end of the game, and in Ceaser s tent. I didn t say it in this thread, but I ve it many times.

No, Richardson at no point ever says that he is a good guy and neither did I. F3 is just a [censored] example of what the Enclave actually intend to do.

Nor for that matter have I ever called the Enclave good people.

I know what their goals r LT. Its not that complexed of an idea to grasp. For guys to start telling me now just because im not old guard I dont even know the difference between right and wrong or good or evil is a laugher. I have to play fo2 to know evil when I see it. 33 years of life and the world around me has taught me nothing, but if I played f02 then I d know. wow.



Its a dumb stupid battle, I could say the sky was blue OG would disagree. Its sad...

Good things can come from Evil. Good people sometimes have to do evil deeds to stop Evil.

Again, where was that ever said; what we said was that Fallout 2 is a better representation of what the Enclave actually wants to do.

And nobody said that the Enclave were good.

Actually it is a very complex idea to grasp. The idea of "the ends justify the means" or "do evil for a greater good" is never a straight forward black/white idea, and thats what we're talking about. Theologians and philosophers have been debating this very question for time immemorial.

We're also not asking you to change your "life long morals", if we are then please point out when and where we did so. All we are saying is that while the Enclave certainly are not angels or "good guys" they are not pure evil either, no one in the Fallout universe is.

Cleary you are an idealist (and there is nothing inherently wrong with that) in the sense that you believe that an action of violence or harm to another is never justified no matter what the cause, likewise, I am the realist in the sense that I believe that occasionally the ends do justify the means.