What choice/outcome did YOU choose at Covenant..? [Plot Discussion, Spoilers]

[Tesityr]

If I may, I am curious as to what some might have chosen as a plot path (decision/choice) once discovering the truth about Covenant... One of the great things about this game is that it rarely has binary moralism (decisions that are '100% Good' or '100% Bad') - you can play a Character as a 'good-ish' person, then have another Playthrough where you choose mostly Sarcastic/'bad-ish' decisions, exploring the outcome (and plot/story/characters) for both, eventually.

For the plot/story with Covenant, I am just curious as to why you and others might have chosen the outcome you did; and if you can verbalize it, why you chose that outcome/path. I am totally not a Synth.

[fauxpas]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από xybolt:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από fauxpas:

I killed the town and saved the girl, because honestly, the GOAT test is a fraud and they didn't care that they were killing humans.

The GOAT test is just silly. But to call it as a "fraud"? Please allow me to not agree with you on this matter.

Yes, it's a fraud for the very reason Richard suggests, it doesn't work and unless the scientists are killing everyone who takes the test (they aren't, at least anymore) there is no way to verify how many, if any false negatives are being missed, although we do know it has a horrendous false positive.


It's supposed to be an easter egg to Blade Runner, but without the supporting tech that made said test work.

[fauxpas]

Hell, the first time I took it I picked the "synth" answer by pure random chance.

[Tesityr]

If I may pop in on some Synth lore [repeated here from another posting I made on the subject, but it will help in this Thead]... remember that in instances where they revealed creation/evolution of the Synths (and the Automatrons) there were always records (usually found via Terminals) of Scientists 'trying to make them more lifelike'...
Not only is this the goal of many scientists in Robotics (in-game and IRL), there will always be some humans that want cybernetic organisms to be more 'life-like' - perhaps even companions in life. That is part of human nature (in-game and IRL).

The revealing of the anomaly in Synths; that is, of them having 'feelings' and even 'wanting to be free' ((why would a robot "want to be free"?)) in the game, is the presentation of the concept of Deus Ex Machina - whether it be present by humanistic programming, or some anomalous instigation of an unknown source.
This contradiction/conceptual has been with humanity since we could create the simplest automatrons IRL.
This is one of the main cruxes of the entire game/lore/setting... "are Synths really 'coming alive'" or "are they a result of humanistic programming influences"?

[DouglasGrave]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από fauxpas:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από xybolt:

The GOAT test is just silly. But to call it as a "fraud"? Please allow me to not agree with you on this matter.

Yes, it's a fraud for the very reason Richard suggests, it doesn't work and unless the scientists are killing everyone who takes the test (they aren't, at least anymore) there is no way to verify how many, if any false negatives are being missed, although we do know it has a horrendous false positive.

I don't think it's deliberately fraudulent, but I do think the people working on it are deluding themselves. They want it to work so badly that they just can't bring themselves to consider flaws in their approach.

You get a strong sense of this when Dr. Chambers talks about how "I'm certain the autopsy will confirm my hypothesis." and when she assures you "There is a correlation. We've measured it. We just need more data, more test subjects, to narrow it down." She says it almost as if trying to reassure herself, rather than just convince the player.

[fauxpas]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από DouglasGrave:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από fauxpas:

Yes, it's a fraud for the very reason Richard suggests, it doesn't work and unless the scientists are killing everyone who takes the test (they aren't, at least anymore) there is no way to verify how many, if any false negatives are being missed, although we do know it has a horrendous false positive.

I don't think it's deliberately fraudulent, but I do think the people working on it are deluding themselves. They want it to work so badly that they just can't bring themselves to consider flaws in their approach.

You get a strong sense of this when Dr. Chambers talks about how "I'm certain the autopsy will confirm my hypothesis." and when she assures you "There is a correlation. We've measured it. We just need more data, more test subjects, to narrow it down." She says it almost as if trying to reassure herself, rather than just convince the player.

I can agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that the townsfolk have to die, not for the toaster, but for the humans they are killing over a teen magazine style personality quiz.

[DouglasGrave]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από fauxpas:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από DouglasGrave:

I don't think it's deliberately fraudulent, but I do think the people working on it are deluding themselves. They want it to work so badly that they just can't bring themselves to consider flaws in their approach.

You get a strong sense of this when Dr. Chambers talks about how "I'm certain the autopsy will confirm my hypothesis." and when she assures you "There is a correlation. We've measured it. We just need more data, more test subjects, to narrow it down." She says it almost as if trying to reassure herself, rather than just convince the player.

I can agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that the townsfolk have to die, not for the toaster, but for the humans they are killing over a teen magazine style personality quiz.

Morally, their delusion could mean they genuinely think they're working for the greater good, but yes, in-game you really don't have any option for stopping them except to kill them.

[Flippy]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από DouglasGrave:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από fauxpas:

I can agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that the townsfolk have to die, not for the toaster, but for the humans they are killing over a teen magazine style personality quiz.

Morally, their delusion could mean they genuinely think they're working for the greater good, but yes, in-game you really don't have any option for stopping them except to kill them.

They attack the player even before the player does anything...

Its not a very nice quest and i have complained there is no peaceful way for the quest, but what ever.

I have similar complaints about Nuka World being evil only as well.

[fauxpas]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από DouglasGrave:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από fauxpas:

I can agree with that, but that doesn't change the fact that the townsfolk have to die, not for the toaster, but for the humans they are killing over a teen magazine style personality quiz.

Morally, their delusion could mean they genuinely think they're working for the greater good, but yes, in-game you really don't have any option for stopping them except to kill them.

Morality doesn't matter in this case, whether they believe in thier cause or not, they are too dangerous to be allowed to live and quite frankly, even if the game offered a method of stopping them sans violence, it would be pixie dust and bad writing.

[The Inept European]

I agree with Richard Stoker that the moral ambiguity is cartoonish. There's very little real ambiguity unless you wish to project into it heavily. If the Railroad made a crude propaganda film to scare the baby toasters and educate the normies into the Twue Path, it would be the story of Covenant.

The residents vary from sinister and malevolent to, at best, traumatised people being exploited and terrorised. There's nothing good in the town. Their incompetent glowering malevolent evil lacks even the (I hate to say this) slim chance of utility that mitigates the Institute's incompetent glowering malevolent evil.

What you see in Covenant is a bunch of damaged, deranged people acting out a sick control fantasy that they desperately hope will make their nightmares go away. But it won't, and they all know it, and that they're digging themselves deeper into the nightmare and are far worse monsters than the 'monsters' they use as justification for their own atrocities.

It's morally very one dimensional. It basically undermines the attempt of Fallout 4 to be 'morally ambiguous', by hugely tipping the hand in favour of the poor innocent toasters.

And if you think about it, pretty much all moral choices in FO4 want you to help the toasters. It's only in Far Harbor that a degree of moral ambiguity is restored.

[The Inept European]

Anyway I oscillate between:

- leave them alive because it's a very convenient vendor, doctor, and food source

- kill them all, but leave Chambers alive (despite her passive-aggressive begging for death) so she suffers eternally with her conscience and her feeble justifications for her crimes.

It's clear Chambers has no evidence that her personal tragedy was caused by a synth murder-doppelganger - though of course they do exist. In fact there's a strong hint that she's erected her entire obsessive hatred of synths just because she can't deal with the possibility that her own father was actually a vile bastard.

[The Inept European]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Richard Stroker:

Again, it's not a mission made to make you think. Only pseudointellectuals and oxhorn viewers try to pretend this is a thought provoking game. She's a cartoon villain holding a damsel in distress and your options are to twirl your moustache right along side her as she murders the damsel or rescue the damsel. That's the entire game.

Pretty much this yes.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Richard Stroker:

Oh and I almost forgot, they also have no way of confirming thier findings as according to the narrative Gen 3 synths are medically indistinguishable from humans (even though the player finds synth parts...) so she can't actually have any way of discerning her successes from failures despite her claiming she can via autopsy.

This is not correct. G3 synths do deterministically drop synth parts. The issue is not that there is no test, but that there is no non-fatal test. This has a number of implications, including that (contrary to what Doug will no doubt allege) the existence of Institute synth murder-infiltration units is an absolute certainty known as proven and evidenced fact to pretty much the entire settled human population of the Commonwealth.

The fact that everyone knows, correctly, that there are synth murder-infiltration units amongst them, and that everyone knows that if you find the synth part, you killed a synth, means that an experimental programme like Covenant is actually rationally feasible, just morally questionable. A better written moral dilemma and a better written Chambers would make these arguments. And might be trying hundreds of scientific tests (shooting subjects with Syringer darts, or giving them rad food, for example) rather than the stupid GOAT test. They might even have a moral claim, since they all believe themselves to be victims of synths, and it could be argued, Terminator style, that humanity is at risk of enslavement if not annihilation, and that grossly immoral acts are necessary for the sake of survival or at least for the sake of freedom.

But Chambers is a cartoon villain, a less sexy version of Elsa, She-Wolf of the SS. So we get none of this possible subtlety, no moral ambiguity.

[The Inept European]

A valid response, which I was tempted to do last time is

- kill all the Covenant leaders and operatives because they are (as noted) a clear and present danger to any travelers, and a deranged bunch of clueless murderers and torturers

- leave alive the brainwashed victims since they're victims not perpetrators. This denies you a useful settlement but hey, moral choices are meaningless unless they come with costs

- kill the Amelia synth because it is a murder-infiltration unit

- kill Honest Dan in self defence if necessary, if he has a crush on his boss's toaster-daughter

- follow the trail to Bunker Hill to investigate a possible toaster nest and exterminate it

[The Inept European]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Tesityr:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Reddit.com/r/volleyball_haters:

i always side with the town cus the shop has good loot

I have done this on many characters, but not all of them... if we choose that path, we are essentially allowing them to interrogate potential innocent humans (or successfully find hidden Synths) simply because we want access to a Shop and Doctor.... That is almost pure relativism ("doing what serves us the most")... Interesting.

I would call that utilitarianism rather than relativism.

Relativism would be finding a way to say their suffering isn't real or doesn't matter. Utilitarianism just prioritises our utility over their suffering, without denying their suffering exists.

There's a middle ground which is to kill everyone in the Compound (maybe except Chambers), kill Orden and Brian Fitzgerald and the other asswipes in the settlement, but leave the vendor, doctor, and crop-tenders alive, and the damaged refugees. And leave Amelia in the cell.

No more murder-torture, but you still get your utility from the settlement.

[The Inept European]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από fauxpas:

Hell, the first time I took it I picked the "synth" answer by pure random chance.

There is no "Synth" answer, the player can't fail the test.

[The Inept European]

Here is a quick summary of the entirely unambiguous moral framework of FO4 that the writers want you to figure out after following their ham-fisted cues:

1. The MM are... the nice guys (and as we know, nice guys finish last)
2. The BoS are... pompous w4nkers and petty tyrants. (But as we know, fascists get the best uniforms and the coolest weapons.)
3. The Institute are... evil
4. G3 synths (and hence the RR) are... good.
5. Institute G3 synth murder-kidnap-infiltration units are... Oh wait look over there is that a legendary glowing pile of brahminshit!