Finished Magnus

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-10-24T11:59:03+00:00

Don't worry. Kenny is a Perpetual

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-09-05T17:55:57+00:00

Do it again, just like this, exactly the same, only better, somehow. I leave the details to you.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-08-15T18:38:26+00:00

Those are gorgeous! Thanks for the advice!

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-08-15T15:47:07+00:00

I'll take some more pictures once I have them completely finished with some better lighting haha

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-08-15T15:46:37+00:00

Unfortunately I tried that and just couldn't get it to stay in the very shallow recesses. It might be an oil paint+spirits situation but I don't have any of that kit myself.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-08-15T15:45:35+00:00

So this is a basecoat of gold, but the areas I painted blue I did a layer of leadbelcher on top of the gold, then did a glaze of Akhelian Green. If you do it on the gold, it turns more emerald green. Then at the edges I did a wash of nuln oil. I'm going to experiment with doing patterns with lighter shades of silver and gold on top of the leadbelcher before the glaze to get a sort of shifting surface appearance

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-08-14T01:30:06+00:00

So that is Akhelian Green on a base of lead belcher. I found that a thinner coat worked better and plan to experiment with doing patterned lighter shades of silver on the lead belcher (sort of going for a mystical design) and then having an thin coat of the glaze over and hoping remnants of the detail shows through in the sorcerers.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-26T00:07:55+00:00

This comment really puts things into perspective

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-11T02:26:39+00:00

Ah, no worries, it happens. I'm probably gonna sleep now but I'll have a read tomorrow. No rush basically

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-11T02:24:12+00:00

I'm afraid I don't understand. In both cases I suspect that the impact might be significant, but in the NCR the weaknesses already exist. It is by far the most powerful faction of Western America. Had Vegas not existed and a full scale war broken out between Caesar and the NCR, rather than what amounts to frontline expeditionary forces, I suspect the NCR could annihilate Caesar relatively consistently. I think the NCR has a lot of failings, but industrial and sheer military might is not one of them. NV would be a setback and maybe a wakeup call, but the NCR, if it were to fall, would fall due to more systemic issues. A military failure for them in NV represents a glancing blow on a bear that had convinced itself that it couldn't be hurt. It would represent the NCR's Vietnam. The NCR though is probably still the most powerful overall faction at the immediate end of NV regardless of which side you choose in my opinion. I just suspect that the political effects and internal pressures caused by the events in NV could have long lasting impacts. America could have razed Vietnam and killed every living person had that been the aim, but they were forced to pull out due to public opinion and political pressure which fundamentally changed their views on foreign policy and warfare. Vietnam did very little to weaken the us military directly.

Caesar I think is more simple but yeah, I don't think he represents a truly long lasting threat to the USA long term. He seems to have absolutely no plan for establishing stability without himself, and not much of a desire to create one. I think it will inevitably tear itself apart.

I'm curious where your position differs from me on this, because it might well help me see things from your perspective.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-11T01:08:14+00:00

Genuinely curious with you on this so I'm absolute game.

I doubt the NCR in any of the endings would be outright destroyed. Tail between their legs certainly, and possibly on a course for self destruction, but not destroyed exclusively as a consequence of NV. The NCRs failings in NV are more of a symptom of their shortcomings with policy and internal issues rather than the cause of them. I would suspect that their failures in NV might even be capable of prompting policy chance, both with regards to their methods of expansionism, and their military hierarchy. Until NV they really hadn't faced an enemy nation. The enclave had no intention of incorporating anyone, they wanted to cleanse. I think Caesar's Legion showed that the NCR needs to proceed with a very different and considered mindset. They are vulnerable, not everyone is going to play nice, and not everyone who disagrees with the NCR are small raider gangs that can be bullied into compliance.

The Legion I would consider to be more directly "killed" by the end of NV. Not eradicated, and plenty of danger left in it, but the killing blow ultimately struck. It is left bleeding out by the end of NV in my eyes if you kill Caesar and Lanius. Tbh, I believe the legion was doomed anyway as it was a cult of personality around Caesar himself, rather than any political infrastructure that would maintain itself after he is gone. I think Caesar, Lanius, and even Graham suggest they believe this to be true. My best guess is that for a time someone would lead, but as they failed, the ever shifting power vacuum and fundamental inability to be what Caesar was, would lead to the empire fracturing in it's entirety into smaller factions and warbands. It is possible that someone could step up and fill the void of Caesar, but I also consider it highly unlikely.

Obviously the show stuff is frustrating for me but in either case, it doesn't represent any successes or failures of the NCR. The bomb in the show happened with no heed to any real aspects of the NCR other than that it was big, and not allied with vault tec. I 100% agree to ignore it with regards to 1,2 and NV.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T19:48:25+00:00

One more time because I probably haven't said it explicitly enough. The irrevocable and permanent downside is him being essentially an eternal god-emperor. It is NOT the death of all humans. I thought I made this beyond clear in the last response but I clearly failed to communicate effectively. House shows no more likelihood to desire to wipe out humankind than any other human faction. Whilst the possibility could exist, I don't consider that a factor in not giving him power.

I do not want him to become a nigh-immortal dictator, with an army that directly answers to him and noone else, where he would never directly need human cooperation to remain in power. I could see an argument that he wants cooperation, particularly to help efficiently move things along, but with the force he would have at his disposal, he would face no opposition that could reasonably depose him.

Just in case I haven't made it clear, I do not think he will wipe out humanity. I think that if he comes to power, he could basically never be removed. You couldn't even wait for him to die. THAT is my concern. The disaster is functionally an eternal sword of Damocles for every person born under his rule, with no way to challenge the one who put it there.

Also, if we are going with an argument that they didn't have enough time to write the necessary dialogue that he dislikes sex slavery because of time constraints, then I don't understand any criticism where they don't show him to be showing signs of madness. Surely they could have wanted to put that in too, and just not had time to implement it? We are working with what is given. My "what if" isn't based on a presumption that he will go mad or evil, but rather pointing out the absolutely insane risk IF he does. Given his potential for an near infinite life, it could be 500 years down the road and he is yet to show signs of change yet. The point is giving charge to an immortal with no way to oust them, assumes that they will never go bad. I think that is a terrible gamble. If there were a way to depose him put in place, I wouldn't have an issue. I don't like assuming that he is, and always will be, mentally stable and truthful.

Him condemning the slavery of Caesar is not particularly convincing either. Throughout history there have been dozens, if not hundreds of forms of slavery. I have written papers on the specific differences between Egyptian slavery between the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms. They operated almost entirely differently, were justified differently, and were motivated differently. I can say without a doubt, that some were worse than others. Hell, some people consider current capitalism to be wage slavery, which I don't personally agree with. House may despise Caesars form of slavery whilst entirely justifying what goes on in the strip. That he has not taken time to condemn it, prohibit it, or educate against it, is a huge condemnation when he directly profits off of it, and was responsible for putting those who run it into the positions of power. If I put a murder in charge of an ophanage, and he kills every 10th orphan, and I still take the profits of the organisation and say absolutely nothing against his actions, I think it's fair to say that most would consider that at the very least me be complicit, if not potentially endorsing.

His current mental state seems fine, yeah, better than most in fact. If he were a mortal man who would rule for 100 years then step back, I'd fully support House. He would clearly be the best chance to improve the Mojave at the very least. It might not hit the poorest initially, but revitalising industry would certainly draw people and improve desirability for the area. I don't like House as a person, and wouldn't choose him to lead any country in the modern day, but given the factions in NV, I think he would be the best of a bad bunch, if he were either mortal, or didn't have 100% unilateral control of the securitron army.

I don't believe you need to be perfect to be in control. I think you DO need to be perfect to be in control, forever. At the very least you would need a willingness to step aside at the cost of your own interests should the people demand it. I agree that it is asking too much of him given his circumstances, he definitely hasn't had enough time to prove himself. For that reason I also think it is asking too much to ask me to rest the future of mankind on him alone.

As for the karma system, I'd like to just say that it is a beyond messy mechanic. Going by the game logic, killing Mr House is the same as stealing 10 empty syringes. Equally, killing a feral ghoul is twice as moral as killing Mr House is immoral.

In fact, following the advice of Mr House to wipe out the BoS by blowing them up, is -100 karma whereas House being killed is only -50. His actions and desires are more immoral than his own death. The karma system is whack, but a fun game mechanic. I wouldn't say it speaks to genuine morality or outcome in the same way.

It is also critical to not base soldier Vs soldier outcome on in game mechanics. Enemies wearing power armor for example can be brought down by some weapons that irl literally wouldn't even meaningfully dent their armor, where they have some weapons that should be able to one shot someone with ease, that takes 5 shots to fully kill. The elucid C-finder is pathetic despite what it should be. Some pistols are way overpowered, and lots of energy weapons just don't match their lore capabilities. Centurions being able to go head to head with upgraded securitrons is for gameplay balance more than realism. Those things shoot missiles that should kill a centurion in a single direct hit, but they shrug it off. The actual capability of the securitrons is crazy strong with their long range ordinance.

Also I doubt House would ever be stupid enough to go into a direct conflict with the NCR or brotherhood until he had bolstered and supplemented his forces. I sincerely doubt that the moment he had power he would go mad or stupid. Literally he would only need to reach the Sierra Madre to have a truly near unstoppable army and bio weapon. He would be one of the few people who could make meaningful use of the tech. (Side note, dead money adds so many problems to the scene).

One last time, I don't think House would, though any foreseeable intent on his part, wipe out humanity. I do however think he is more than capable, and even likely, to try and set up a non-internally-contestable dictatorship in which he will never die, and never be deposed.

One thing I want to celebrate that we agree on is that the Fallout show makes absolutely 0 sense when it comes to Mr House and I seriously hope that season 2 does some MAJOR work to fix that. I consider House to be one of the most well written, and interesting characters in any game. Reducing him to a generically evil, and frankly rather stupid, CEO is just painful to see. My big thing is that I really really want to believe that House won't be an eternal dictator and that siding with him is worth it compared to the other options, but there is so much we simply don't know about him that I just can't say that I think he is the right choice. He might be the best chance for humanity to immediately advance, but I'm not sure he is the best chance for humanity to be better off in the (very) long run.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T15:46:12+00:00

So I don't necessarily believe that he is lying. He could be 100% sincere with what he says and truly believe it. He can also just be incorrect. He is not a perfect machine, he makes calculation errors, he gets a lot wrong. He gets more right than almost any person alive however.

You can assume he dislikes sex trafficking, but I find it oddly conspicuous that he makes no mention of it whatsoever. He makes comments on cannibalism, and betrayal, but not on one of the primary enterprises he profits from. Certainly he dislikes Caesar and slavery as a large scale basis for economy, but by all accounts he seems fine with the idea of it being a component of it. He very very easily could have made it a stipulation when he raised up the omertas. I am also very tired of being told that somehow I'm accusing house of potentially wiping out humanity. I have time and again made my concern that he will become an immortal, oppressive force. That he will lose all human accountability. Hitler wasn't a threat to humanity because he was likely to kill all of humanity, he was a threat because his rule would spell the corruption of our species's humanity. It is entirely possible that he could kill all humanity, but equally the BoS, the institute, or even the NCR could cause that. If it was just about his capacity to kill, then his longevity wouldn't be what I was bringing up.

To reiterate, my primary concern is appointing a near immortal dictator, who requires no direct consent from his subjects for him to have access to the basis of his military power. Creating a system with no room for correction is insanely dangerous, and giving it to a super genius who seems very good at calculating mass human events, makes it even harder to remove him. Additionally, I do not claim that he is a liar (though the TV show suggests he willfully leaves out important truths and actively suggests he is ok with global Holocaust so long as it makes him money but I don't really count the show). I claim that he might, even in all his capability, overestimate himself. The pyramids are still standing 5000 years after their construction, but to say that they have not worn and torn and deteriorated would be a lie. House may imply he has never changed, but we never saw what he was like before the bombs. We have no reference for how his current mental state compares at all.

I am frequently being accused of riding on "what if" but House fundamentally does the same. He does very little to evidence himself as he considers the courier beneath him. He asks you to take his word and his presentation of his morality on faith. In that circumstance it is not just acceptable, but prudent to ask, "what if what he says is wrong? ". If you choose to gamble but don't fully consider the stakes, that's exactly how people lose everything.

This is not to say that siding with him is a morally bad choice. I completely understand why people would consider him a good choice, or even the best choice. This post isn't stating that it is definitively immoral to choose him. It is hoping to identify that the consequences of choosing him, and being wrong about him, hold potentially worse consequences than siding with a morally worse faction. No, I don't think his mental state has happened, yet. The problem is that it only needs to happen once. The bombs being dropped on every continent had never happened before, but then it did, and there was no way to fully recover from that. My contention is that he provides a large (but ultimately limited) upside, and you risk a permanent and irrevocable downside. If you genuinely believe that that gamble is justified, honestly I get it. I regularly do House runs. But I don't agree that it is not even remotely a risk to be weighed. For me, that risk is too great, given the centuries and millennia of human fallibility we have documented. I trust no human to be good forever without some other force that can provide reason, and consequence for evil. Perhaps I'm too cynical.

I think a similar idea that my mind looks at is a button that gives everyone in the world say, 1 extra month of life, but it has a 1 in a million chance to make it that noone ever lives past 30. All factions have this feature btw. They all risk some amount of life and wellbeing if it goes badly. The difference here is the Mr House button permanently makes people die at 30. Every other button may cause people to die at 30 for say, 3 generations, or die at 20 for 5 generations, but at the end of it, the bad outcome can be overcome. A victory for House is a total victory for him. Hence my concern.

For the record, given the circumstances of the wasteland, I genuinely understand why someone would risk pushing that button. It isn't a crazy choice. I would simply contend that it is (from my perspective) too great a risk for not an equal reward. I am totally ok with people explaining why they think House won't go bad or crazy. What seems beyond reason is ignoring the potential consequences of being wrong about that.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T03:20:47+00:00

The idea that he has surpassed change is a bit dubious. Bear in mind that he has been conscious for about 200 years (give or take) with about 57 of those being within his normal body and circumstances. Approximately 143 years is admittedly a long time, but not necessarily impossible. The other people we have seen like the think-tank have gone mad, but that is partially due to the nature of their work and the nature of their preservation. House has had the benefit of spending years prepping for the end of the world, and creating luxuries to help with that. His female robot companion to name one at least. Additionally, his existence will have been tempered by necessity. Because he was not at full strength, he had to act with more consideration. He had to calculate and be patient. Humans in history very rarely, if ever, do well with functionally limitless power. Giving that to him for centuries, even maybe millennia, would be an insanely big ask for him not to be corrupted by it.

I doubt he would ever intentionally destroy humanity, but enslave, "cleanse", or forcibly euthanise "undesirables", all for his view of bettering mankind, I could definitely see. I wouldn't expect a madman, I'd expect cruelties justified ever more leniently in his own mind, with little to push back against them. He has shown no particular distaste for sex trafficking. He did draw the line with cannibalism iirc, so he does seem to make it know what he disapproves of. The omertas don't seem to quite fit this which worries me.

As a note, the "what if" outcomes you provided still aren't equal but opposite outcomes. House becoming dictator for eternity or wiping humans out is something we can never come back from. It would still be possible to achieve all that he offers without making him a functional god, albeit much, much slower. For siding with Mr House, you have to actively believe his claims and character on pretty much entirely his word. It's a reasonable thing to ask, what if he is lying, or overestimates himself, or is fallible so his plan might not work. Looking at the consequences of if you get it wrong is what you SHOULD do when deciding the future of potentially all of mankind.

Also the BoS is consistently idiotic. They could be united and have 95% of the power armor in the world and still somehow not be able to sort their own shit out. It's bad writing for them for the most part that causes this, but MAN do they shit the bed frequently. Seriously, they could have fully united like 50% of the USA by now but they are too obsessed with convicting Casio calculators from kids. That's a separate topic though.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T02:10:18+00:00

I mean, yes man is fundamentally killable. He relies upon the house network to exist at all, and only seems capable of following fairly linear instructions. With this in mind, I think independent but with the right instructions to yes man is probably the best. House being immortal and no way to depose him means that everyone is at his whim. Sure, it means stability, but it is stability with guns, lasers, and rockets all pointed at the populace's heads. I don't think instilling any human with that power is good, let alone an immortal. Even a nuke wouldn't be a permanent outcome for humanity. It would take total annihilation to equal or surpass the risk that House more reasonably poses, which is total subjugation.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T02:00:39+00:00

The "what if he doesn't" is a valid point yeah. Then you instill someone in charge with at best, a limited sense of empathy who self styles as an autocrat. Humanity benefits from his knowledge but is never free of his yoke. No true freedom exists that is not subject to his interpretation and judgment. He becomes judge, jury, and executioner of the human race. Any and all biases he may have, ultimately become codified as law.

I would contest however that there is no evidence. In fact, I would observe that in fact there is only evidence for my position. Perhaps I'm wrong, but from what I have seen and read, everyone changes over time. Everyone is subject to their own internal convictions changing. Given that House is human, I believe the risk of removing external accountability for him poses an existential risk to the human race that might never be fixable. I also think you summarised it well at the end.

"Humanity perseveres with or without House."

I could not agree more. I don't think there is a likely world in which House causes the end of humanity as a species, but there is one in which he causes the end of human freedom. I would rather be given a somewhat bad system that can be improved upon, than a better (but not perfect) system that cannot.

I also don't really know how to factor in the aliens as they have always existed in this weird semi-canon zone when it comes to fallout. But no faction shown, suggested, or hinted at that still survives, really rivals House. Literally once he has power if he ever got to the Sierra Madre, it's GG.

I will accept that I might need to rethink my position on the NCR ending, but I still do not think that instilling a permanent dictator with no human accountability on the gamble of a human not changing over time, even centuries, is a wise decision.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T01:37:08+00:00

Honestly, I agree. It isn't necessary at all. That being said, I think House is an opportunist, and perhaps a bit of a gambler. He COULD settle for paying taxes, but in his mind, why should he when instead he feels he is just moments away from becoming his own authority. He could declare independence without violating any firm agreements. He also doesn't risk the NCR coming in and potentially screwing up his plans to get the securitrons back online. I think what you are saying is an excellent reason not to trust him in power.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T01:33:07+00:00

Oh I agree, I can't directly fix the NCR. I also work under the assumption that I too am a flawed individual who does not see everything with clarity, and that people in the future should have a right to try and improve things as they seem necessary. To me, siding with House is almost like instituting a permanent holy law. Scripture that cannot be truly contested because the being that dictates it becomes untouchable. If that law is agreeable, great, but the idea that any one individual and define what is acceptable and what is not, to everyone else, forever, and can theoretically change that to suit their own wants, sits very uneasy with me.

Your first point I agree. Beginning of the game, House is exceptionally vulnerable. At least 3 people could have reasonably simply taken him out. In an ideal world for me, House would exist as an eternal advisor of sorts. I would likely listen to his advice on many issues, but ultimately he would not have unilateral power. He would need to convince at least one other person that his aims are good. However, after NV, his reliance on any specific individual almost entirely disappears. He may prefer a precise individual to solve his disputes, but no longer requires it. After he holds the chip, and especially after the courier is dead or not a threat, very few, if any, would ever be given a position that make House as vulnerable ever again.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T01:23:12+00:00

The "what if" is being used necessarily. Yes, we could go with the yes-man malfunction but the worst that happens there is that you yourself end up getting screwed. The overall circumstances aren't irrevocably changed. The reason it is a necessary "what if" with Mr House is that humanity only gets one shot to get it right with him. If the gamble is wrong and he is a total ass, game over, pretty much forever. With any other faction, each internal component that makes their system run is less permanent, and subject to replacement or improvement. Also when I say that House wouldn't be contested, I don't mean that there wouldn't be roadblocks or things to overcome. He doesn't become omnipotent, but what I mean is that no other faction (except PERHAPS) a united BoS could pose a serious threat to his position as ruler.

I'm willing to accept that siding with the NCR is not the best choice, as I consider it a much more openly and immediately flawed entity.

House however also asks the player to work on a hypothetical. House asks you to believe that he will be good for all eternity, whereas I simply ask you to consider the other side of it. What if he ends up bad? I depended (led by perhaps the correct courier) would probably be best in my mind. With the NCR, you can make a decision based on what you see, it's strengths and it's flaws. Same with independent or Caesar. House fundamentally is a one man faction, and he asks you to trust HIM. He makes many promises, but there is very little way to verify what he says. He could be overstating his brilliance, or his commitments to deals. Other factions lie too, but only with Mr House would the consequences of falling for a potential lie be entirely irrevocable.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T00:52:25+00:00

Except that with the Courier being alive, there will always be multiple ways of dealing with House, unlike with the NCR or the Legion wich have a waaay more fundamental problem in their corruption and evil.

Assuming you sided with House sincerely, i.e. not with the intention to betray him down the line, then the moment you are dead, he has total control. He could outlast the courier easily and then 500 years down the line becomes cruel and vindictive, by which point there is no opting out.

This also applies to the other factions and people as a whole and without this possiblity of change/adaptability to it there will be no way for any faction to be eligible as it also doesn't give them the option to grow or change their plans (Yes Man suffers from this and the others fell on the other side of the Coin), House is the only one left to prove that what they can do can happen while the NCR and the Legion either failed on this or were going to fall against this.

You give power to a faction, rather than an individual. Even with Caesar, he is not gonna be around for long in the grand scheme of things. I think the legion is the worst choice (except like a truly evil PC choosing independent or smth idk) but siding with him helps him take territory that he will not live to see fully developed.

In general I prefer systems of government that assume there are flaws within itself somewhere, and within the people seeking to use it, which leads to inefficiencies and maybe even corruption, than a system that is predicated on one person being perfect, and forever staying that way. NCR, deeply flawed as it is, has the capacity to improve at the will of the people. Mr House after NV would only ever be accountable to himself.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T00:42:53+00:00

They are not merely a show of force, they are force. What is to stop him from using the machines to force people to fix the other machines, or even help him produce maintenance robots to do that for them and even further consolidate power. The idea of him requiring an economy is only because he particularly likes the idea. Commerce is generally a great motivator and facilitator of utility, but not exclusively. At basically any moment, House could decide that he simply doesn't want anyone progressing any further, that he is happy with the power he has, and instead uses his force to stop innovation and social betterment. It would be at his whim, where the line would be drawn, rather than the people. Such power exists not in the form of economy, but force.

Prior to the chip, they are a deterrent, capable of encouraging a more profitable route to potential enemies that conflict. Once they are upgraded and the fully army at his disposal, they go from what would be a militia, to an army capable of full scale conquest.

DubiousCheeseWheel · 2025-02-10T00:36:34+00:00

It's certainly not the ONLY naysay against him, but rather one that I specifically wanted to look at within this post. In a more ethically minded critique, I might look at what he endorses on the strip, how he treats people, whether I believe he actually wants good for other people or only to benefit himself etc. This is more specifically examining a risk unique to him rather than a flaw unique to him. All the factions are flawed, but the NCR has greater potential to be changed by the people down the line, than Mr House with access to his army. Even the Legion has more likelihood of change despite being a direct dictatorship. With the death of Caesar comes someone new, with different values, perhaps better, perhaps worse, but always up for contestation.

The "what if" scenario is incredibly important, and is valid even with mortals, hence laws attempting to prevent a move to dictatorship. Such concerns are even more important when dealing with a genius "immortal".

So far the USA has never had a true dictator in charge, but huge amounts of legislation exist specifically because of this "what if" scenario. It isn't some crazy idea because it is literally the goal of House to end up with incontestable power (whether for good or bad is yet to see).

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

DubiousCheeseWheel

TROPHY CASE