"Brotherhood of Steel thinks ghouls are all monsters."

[Xenon The Noble]

Was Hancock right when he said the BOS thinks all ghouls are monsters?
https://youtu.be/iIkzFmtFVjs
Someone told me that the BOS was good with no feral ghouls.
This seems to show otherwise. Are there any examples of higher rank BOS correcting bad attitudes towards ghouls? Or BOS being nice to ghouls?

[DouglasGrave]

Honestly, the Brotherhood doesn't seem to be quite as anti-ghoul as Diamond City, and I'd generally say they're justified in specifically not wanting feral ghouls around. The feral ones are mindless monsters.

[The Inept European]

Er, folks... nobody in the post-apocalyptic wasteland has the time or inclination to be running diversity inclusion sensitivity classes.

The BoS don't like non-feral ghouls and they are not respectful to them either, but they don't kill them on sight. In that they are no worse than every other human in the commonwealth. That's the only judgement you can make, that isn't just inappropriately projecting some pampered modern HR perspective onto a totally different situation that is not in any way comparable.

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

Unless you've got some proof of when McDonough was replaced, I suggest you follow your own advice before stating when it happend:

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

If you cannot find proof something can be proven or disproved it should not even be brought up.

We already had this argument and this is how it played out.

I brought up Hancock's dialogue on the night McDonough won where he claimed that was not his brother.
You argued Hancock's claim was nothing but speculation because you argued the definition of claim meant it had to be true.
Fast forward four days later and I unsubscribed tired of your endless arguing.

[jerrypocalypse]

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

Honestly, the Brotherhood doesn't seem to be quite as anti-ghoul as Diamond City, and I'd generally say they're justified in specifically not wanting feral ghouls around. The feral ones are mindless monsters.

I'd agree with this, particularly about feral ghouls. Those are pretty much just bad for everyone. I'm sure there may be a couple other outliers, but the only semi-pro-feral instance that immediately comes to mind is Roy Phillips. And that was a more extreme circumstance.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by The Inept European:

Er, folks... nobody in the post-apocalyptic wasteland has the time or inclination to be running diversity inclusion sensitivity classes.

The BoS don't like non-feral ghouls and they are not respectful to them either, but they don't kill them on sight. In that they are no worse than every other human in the commonwealth. That's the only judgement you can make, that isn't just inappropriately projecting some pampered modern HR perspective onto a totally different situation that is not in any way comparable.

It might change a little if someone developed a serum that could restore a feral ghoul to their senses, but even then you'd still have people justified in defending themselves from direct attacks when their own lives were under threat.

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by jerrypocalypse:

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

We are not talking real life. We are talking about a written story. Writers cannot cover every possible conversation in a story.

Argumentative claims something exists simply because there is no evidence proving it does not exist are the reason why these topics keep turning into arguments. Find an actual dialogue line and prove your claim.

You're turning this into an argument, not me. I'm discussing with another poster. Not you. Goodbye.

So simply because I want to see some sort of standards for proving something is true that makes me the one turning it into an argument.

Using your standards of proof and logic:

The Institute is prejudiced against all surface dwellers and wants to kill all surface dwellers.

Plenty examples of them killing surface dwellers.
No dialogue says they do not want to kill surface dwellers.
So it must be true.

Having some sort of standards for proof PREVENTS the arguing.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

Unless you've got some proof of when McDonough was replaced, I suggest you follow your own advice before stating when it happend:

We already had this argument and this is how it played out.

I brought up Hancock's dialogue on the night McDonough won where he claimed that was not his brother.
You argued Hancock's claim was nothing but speculation because you argued the definition of claim meant it had to be true.

Please don't start confusing a claim requiring an assertion of truth with it actually being true again. Those are two different things.

Hancock two separate answers; one where he favours the election night mayor being his genuine brother (before McDonough's true nature is revealed) and one favouring him being a synth when he's biased by having the synth identity already revealed. The first one is his neutral judgement (due to not knowing either way), which tells us that we cannot reliably tell from Hancock's judgement whether or not McDonough was already replaced by the election night.

Without already knowing the answer, Hancock cannot identify whether his brother is a synth or not.

[Von Faustien]

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

We already had this argument and this is how it played out.

I brought up Hancock's dialogue on the night McDonough won where he claimed that was not his brother.
You argued Hancock's claim was nothing but speculation because you argued the definition of claim meant it had to be true.

Please don't start confusing a claim requiring an assertion of truth with it actually being true again. Those are two different things.

Hancock offers two different dialogues, one where he favours the election night mayor being his genuine brother (before McDonough's true nature is revealed) and one favouring him being a synth when he's biased by having the synth identity already revealed. The first one is his neutral judgement (due to not knowing either way), which tells us that we cannot reliably tell from Hancock's judgement whether or not McDonough was already replaced by the election night.

If I was the institute I'd only bother with a swap on the actual mayor. McDonough Anti ghoul campaigns on him the synth came later IMO

[jerrypocalypse]

Originally posted by Bored Peon:

Having some sort of standards for proof PREVENTS the arguing.

Except in the past when I have provided proof of things, you get more riled up. And you came in swinging at me, so no thanks. Again, goodbye.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by Von Faustien:

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

Please don't start confusing a claim requiring an assertion of truth with it actually being true again. Those are two different things.

Hancock offers two different dialogues, one where he favours the election night mayor being his genuine brother (before McDonough's true nature is revealed) and one favouring him being a synth when he's biased by having the synth identity already revealed. The first one is his neutral judgement (due to not knowing either way), which tells us that we cannot reliably tell from Hancock's judgement whether or not McDonough was already replaced by the election night.

If I was the institute I'd only bother with a swap on the actual mayor. McDonough Anti ghoul campaigns on him the synth came later IMO

That would be my reasoning as well, since you don't know if he'll win the election with such a risky campaign platform.

Unless the anti-ghoul sentiment in Diamond City is so blatant and extensive that they can be sure he'll win despite all the ghouls voting against him. I guess it would be credible if they talked like the Brotherhood soldiers in that video.

[(N☆G) Jackal ★JJ★]

Originally posted by Xenon The Noble:

Was Hancock right when he said the BOS thinks all ghouls are monsters?
https://youtu.be/iIkzFmtFVjs
Someone told me that the BOS was good with no feral ghouls.
This seems to show otherwise. Are there any examples of higher rank BOS correcting bad attitudes towards ghouls? Or BOS being nice to ghouls?

A fun fact.
Fallout Brotherhood of Steel (an Xbox game) you could play as a ghoul Initiate.

in Fallout Tactics, you can also recruit ghouls.

But pretty sure neither is considered canon anymore despite references to the games made in newer fallout games.

But the lore is all over the place and each chapter tends to have different ideologies.

[Bored Peon]

Originally posted by Von Faustien:

If I was the institute I'd only bother with a swap on the actual mayor. McDonough Anti ghoul campaigns on him the synth came later IMO

Except for the fact it is easier to replace someone that will become Mayor than replace a Mayor. We do not know how long an abduction ad replacement takes. People would notice the Mayor is missing if it is any significant amount of time.

So you replace the unnoticed unguarded guy then run on a prejudiced campaign to give a secure platform to run on. Fear and hate are pretty powerful campaign platforms.

Been a bunch of movies based on that to replace the President Candidate before they are President. Zartan did it in the G.I. Joe movie. Other movies had organizations infiltrating people or blakcmailing them as candidates. Seems pretty feasible such movies could have inspired such a plot.

[Von Faustien]

Originally posted by (N☆G) Jackal ★JJ★:

Originally posted by Xenon The Noble:

Was Hancock right when he said the BOS thinks all ghouls are monsters?
https://youtu.be/iIkzFmtFVjs
Someone told me that the BOS was good with no feral ghouls.
This seems to show otherwise. Are there any examples of higher rank BOS correcting bad attitudes towards ghouls? Or BOS being nice to ghouls?

A fun fact.
Fallout Brotherhood of Steel (an Xbox game) you could play as a ghoul Initiate.

in Fallout Tactics, you can also recruit ghouls.

But pretty sure neither is considered canon anymore despite references to the games made in newer fallout games.

But the lore is all over the place and each chapter tends to have different ideologies.

Well tactics isn't canon the Midwest BOS is which is a wierd situation given basically everything we know about them is from tactics. Either way they're basically cast out from the mainline BOS and acourding to tactics the expedition was a way for the westren elders to ditch everyone who had differing viwes on BOS goals so there actions aren't reflective of the real BOS.

You also get chewed out by the general for recruiting ghouls and deathclaws though his replacement mid campaign is more open to none humans and is mad when you fail to save the FEV sterility cure research and recruit the mutants.

[(N☆G) Jackal ★JJ★]

Originally posted by Von Faustien:

Originally posted by (N☆G) Jackal ★JJ★:

A fun fact.
Fallout Brotherhood of Steel (an Xbox game) you could play as a ghoul Initiate.

in Fallout Tactics, you can also recruit ghouls.

But pretty sure neither is considered canon anymore despite references to the games made in newer fallout games.

But the lore is all over the place and each chapter tends to have different ideologies.

Well tactics isn't canon the Midwest BOS is which is a wierd situation given basically everything we know about them is from tactics. Either way they're basically cast out from the mainline BOS and acourding to tactics the expedition was a way for the westren elders to ditch everyone who had differing viwes on BOS goals so there actions aren't reflective of the real BOS.

You also get chewed out by the general for recruiting ghouls and deathclaws though his replacement mid campaign is more open to none humans and is mad when you fail to save the FEV sterility cure research and recruit the mutants.

Oh, no I agree.
I am just saying a fun fact for the topic at hand. (:

[The Inept European]

Definitely was a pertinent fun fact.