That fact that you support chaos yet criticize the Imperium and BOS make you a hypocrite.

Congratulations, that makes absolutely no sense.

http://i.imgur.com/kwlV7M4.png

Considering it was a doctor who asked you that question, I wouldn't disqualify the chance of it being a strictly medical question. This is the wasteland after all, people get desperate for companionship. The question wasn't even specifically references ghouls and super mutants, or synths. He literally said "Non-Human." That pertains to wasteland creatures, and robots as well, remember F.I.S.T.O?

The western chapters of the BoS *do* encourage their members to be active participants in procreation. There more xenophobic nature means that they also encourage members to have relations with other members, instead of outsiders. But it's never been about eugenics to them, its about keeping your society closely bonded. Which doesn't work nearly as well if soldiers loved ones aren't aligned with the BOS, because then their priorities can cause potential conflict. From what we know, humans cannot produce offspring with ghouls anyway, so the racial purity shtik goes out the window. It's more of an issue to them, for safety and reproductive reasons.

Thankfully not ever faction in the post-apocalypse is lovable and agreeable to everyone. Imagine what a boring game that would be

I agree with Winston Churchill said about Democracy. Something like, "It is the worst form of government ever . . . except for every other form that has ever been tried." The Minute Men strike me as just about the only ones who have a real promise to return democracy to the Commonwealth and that is how it should be, given it was the birthplace of American democracy and all that

Even though Preston is about as interesting as bowl of cooled off noodles and the Minute Men themselves seem to be a serious mixed bag, at least in so far as potency and suvivability.

The BoS look tough inside their tin cans and whirly birds, but I see little evidence in game that they are really that potent or survivable either.

Besides the fact that they have survived and thrived?

Do we, what, just ignore any and all positive evidence whenever we talk about the Brotherhood, then make up whatever we want to be factual for whatever other faction we're talking about?

I don't like elitists bigots. I doubt any argument you can make about them could change that. They are the height of irony in that they supposedly want to "correct" the wrongs that led to the war and yet they exemplify many of those wrongs.

So have the Children of Atom and the Gunners. Lots of groups have managed to survive in the unstructured raider-chaos, but that doesn't make them a good bet going into the more consolidated future.

AND Ghouls! (which brings the thread full circle!)

Ghouls have been around LONGER than the Brotherwhood of Steelz

As long as we're clear that you make up whatever arguments you want based entirely on your personal bias.

The BoS was initiated before the bombs fell, when General Maxson discovered the F.E.V experiment.

Finally went back to the Slog and talked to Wiseman about it. Oddly enough he explicitly said exactly the same thing I did. There was an incident in which a ghoul attacked someone in town, the mayor responded by kicking all ghouls out of DC. Wiseman then asked, as I did, how many regular humans have suddenly attacked and even killed someone in DC? If the answer is more than one, and it obviously is, then the eviction of the ghouls is sheer bigotry.

It's fascinating that someone can hear that dialogue and take away the complete opposite message.

Always have to go there, eh? Personal insults and putting words into other people's mouths.

Stay classy.

The difference is that a feral ghoul is no longer human in any way outside of body shape. They can't be rehabilitated at all.

Do you watch walking dead?

Morgan was a raider.

And that shows the difference very clearly. But just incase I need to spell it out for the willfully obtuse,

Raiders can be reasoned with. Ferals cannot.

*not that the BoS reasons with raiders either. They straight up shoot them. So that argument falls flat anyway.

The Minute Men needing to be persuaded makes plenty of sense, they are an organization being completely rebuilt and their main principle is "Citizen Soldier" some random wastelander signs up wanting to do good and protect their homestead, never goes through boot camp or other significant military training. Sure they need a verbal boot to butt to get motivated. Sure they gripe about being put in harms way to protect other people, its part of the growth process and makes sense.

I still say the distrust of ghouls is based off the massive ignorance of most of the remaining human population, people dont have the knowledge of how ghouls age or go feral, everything is based on rumor and conjecture. they see feral ghouls and dont know if other ghouls are destined to go the same way or not. Its seen as a big risk to take. And not everyone has a life as easy as the PCs in the games, most everyone else is basically helpless without all that plot armor to protect them. If something is even a slight risk than its better to avoid it.

The BoS takes a different approach, they may not be much more educated on things, the Soldier caste at least, but they are far more aggressive to potential threats. the fact that there are other, clearer threats distracts them but i wouldnt be surprised if in times of peace they still dont take the risk and go with a "get off our lawn" approach to anything clearly not human. They just assume its a risk they dont need to take.

Same as you, right? These are all just opinions after all. I still haven't visited the slog to confirm your claims about the ghouls, and you may be correct that the Wiseman tells of an incident in which _a_ ghoul turned feral.

That doesn't contradict anything I've said. Unless the Wiseman is telling us "Ghouls turn feral pretty often . . ." or "I've seen it happen several times . . ." or something along those lines (none of which is anything like the empirical standard that a supposedly "scientific" oriented group like the BoS should stick to) a single incident hardly constitutes evidence that it is enough of a real risk that the BoS is justified to shun non-ferals. I appreciate that their bigotry does not extend so far as to actively promote genocide against non-ferals but in the absence of a clear in game set of facts that show without question that there is a real risk of non-ferals going feral at a rate higher than just "random chance" I stick by my tentative conclusion that the BoS are bigots. Arrogant bigots on top of that. AND despite being in existence since before the bombs fell, and being so full of hubris they are insufferable to be around, they have yet to accomplish anything of note in the Wasteland.

Did he even say that the ghoul had "turned feral?" Because that was the whole point of the stated claim. I asked if anyone had even a single example of an non-feral NPC in the game "turning feral" and that was Treng's response -> go to slog talk to wiseman ask about diamond city, he will tell you all about what happened.

This is what I was referencing re: letting your personal bias allow you to make up arguments.

As for Wiseman, now that I'm home I can upload screenshots. http://i.imgur.com/siT2vOp.jpg

I would suggest the BoS is not a science oriented group. they have a caste of science minded types but they play second fiddle to the soldier caste. The elder scribe quest giver in the BoS tells you he has so many missions available because no resources are being allocated to science missions, just combat and recovery operations. Due to the BoS operating more or less as independent franchises under the control of a single elder in each chapter the values and actions of the BoS in each game have differed significantly.

Their original mission statement was control of technology to prevent another great war finishing what the last one started. by Fallout 2 they realize they have been eclipsed in their use and control of technology and can no longer fulfill this mission without being active in the wasteland. in Fallout 3 we see their first attempts to re-engage with the outside world in a serious manner since the bombs fell. That is a chapter cut off and separate from the West Coast, effectively a new BoS. In Fallout 4 we see the second generation of this new BoS which is lead by a young and aggressive leader who grew up in constant warfare against Ferals and Super Mutants, The BoS eventually won those conflicts and yeah, that gives you an arrogant militant group with a strong prejudice against the peoples their leader has spent a lifetime fighting against. Control of technology is one thing, interfacing with the waste land is another they still have to work out how to do.

"Now it's true that there was one incident in Diamond City where a ghoul turned feral and someone got hurt. But I ask you this - how many humans have suddenly turned violent and killed someone? I've seen it more times than I care to admit."

Fair enough. However, I still cannot stand behind this. Where is "democracy," where are "individual rights," where is due process and any conception of Western jurisprudence in all of this? Nowhere to be found evidently.

They are, as that one guy (sorry bro, still cannot remember your screen name!) has pointed out, crusaders. Truth and beauty or individual dignity are not their primary concerns. The glory of their cause it seems has always been their cause. The idea on which they were founded itself strikes me as absurd: WE are immune to the corrupting power of technology, so WE shall master and hoard it in order to make the world better.

The first step for any legitimate form of government is to acknowledge that we are all "humans" (ghouls and all) and that we need "checks and balances" because no one is immune to the corrupting influences of power nor to the temptations of rights and privileges.

The argument is a move the goalposts fallacy because humans can be reasoned with. Ferals cannot. Ever.

I agree with you Nathair. In the face of a single example, I'd have to say it seems like a pretty remote risk. If it were even TWO, over the entire span of the ~210 years post war, and across all the games, I could consider that "Okay, there does seem to be some risk, and maybe a 'separate but equal' kind of segregation is warranted albeit less than ideal." The idea would of course be to scientifically understand how and why non-ferals go feral and to take steps to either predict and avoid it or prevent it.

Non-ferals can be reasoned with too, no? Or are are you refusing to acknowledge that there are plenty of totally reasonable humans in the game wearing non-feral ghoul textures?

The vast majority of the ghoul race is feral and it's a "pretty remote risk"

bias paints argument yet again.

The vast majority of feral ghouls are feral. The vast majority of non-feral ghouls are non-feral. There is some risk of non-feral ghouls turning feral. Neither of these types of entities (nor any of the other ones) are true "races" nor "species" distinct from humans (this is why I cringe when I see the implications of Bethesda's choice of that term to distinguish the various forms of people in their games . . .).

Ghouls, both feral and non-feral (and super Mutants as well) are all humans, albeit humans afflicted with some dramatic form of bodily transformation resulting from exposure to high doses of radiation or FE virus. Note: you CANNOT get a ghoul, either feral or non-feral nor a super Mutant from any antecedent creature, EXCEPT a human. You wish to believe that, once a person has been transformed by what is effectively a "disease" they are no longer human. I'm here to tell you that is bigotry.

I am perfectly pragmatic in killing every single Mutie and Feral I encounter and I do not grieve my actions. Life is hard. The folks who suffered these fates have my empathy, but I am still alive and intact (sane, unmutated, unharmed, basically healthy) as are scores or hundreds of other humans in the Wasteland and these victims of the war have become a sourge. They justifiably should be exterminated. But that doesn't mean they are not human. They are human, just irrevocably transformed into Monstrous humans is all.

Feral ghouls are also monsters; humans who have been (apparently against their will) transformed by radiation into monsters.

It is concrete lore that all ghouls run the risk of turning feral. Trying to divide them into two different groups to try to imply that sentient ghouls are then not included in the feral ghoul population is a strawman tactic.

Ghousl are dangerous. This isn't IRL racism. This is "nuclear radiation eventually breaks the ghoul's brain and they become people eating monsters."

That's canon.