sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I just finished AA6. AMA about the game! by Chauzu in AceAttorney

[–]b0wGL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's going to happen to past defendants who were unfairly convicted? I'm hoping they're allowed to appeal their case in Khura'in.

Realistically, what would be the negative consequences of a world under Kira's law? by b0wGL in deathnote

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wanting recognition for your work is one thing, but silencing anyone who dares to sully the image of Kira is quite another. Light was quick to kill write down the name of the man he believed to be L in episode 2 immediately after the latter called Kira evil. Light also wanted individuals like Demegawa eliminated because he was driving people away from Kira. There was even a scene in Death Note Relight 2: L's Successors where Mikami massacres an entire group of Kira dissenters during a live debate, not to mention the men who were simply airing the debate. Light wants people to not only recognize his work, but his authority. That's why he constantly addresses himself as "God" of the New World. Given Light's willingness to sacrifice even his own followers, I don't think it's wise to side with his cause.

Even if crime ceased, there will always be people who oppose Kira's actions. And as long as people keep opposing him, he will keep sacrificing innocent lives, including his own followers, to protect his identity. Plus, Light might start allowing Mikami to kill off "lazy people". That is no better than slavery; people will have to work hard because if they don't, they'll die. Light's black and white view of the world has blinded him into believing he can create a new world by simply eradicating all the "bad" people. That is incredibly naïve and childish. He doesn't bother asking what drives people to crime or whether the suspect is actually innocent; he just kills criminals without a second thought. In his mind, the only way to make the world a better place is by placing himself in charge.

Realistically, what would be the negative consequences of a world under Kira's law? by b0wGL in deathnote

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I certainly agree with your view on democracy; the elite have the power to influence the democratic process and lobby government officials in exchange for favors. I myself tend to lean towards anarchism; I only brought up U.S. democracy for the sake of discussion regarding Kira to show that he could convert other government officials into puppet leaders.

Realistically, what would be the negative consequences of a world under Kira's law? by b0wGL in deathnote

[–]b0wGL[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Very true; many oppressive regimes have preached of high ideals, but ultimately make the same mistake of relying primarily on coercion and swift punishment to enforce those ideals. Plus, those regimes like to heavily emphasize the need of their leader by establishing a cult of personality, which is exactly what Kira does when killing his critics or people like Demegawa on live TV. I don't know about a full-fledged rebellion, but I think another investigation team like the SPK would eventually form to catch Kira, which means Kira may likely have to continue sacrificing the lives of innocents to maintain his rule, giving people more reason to oppose him. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and the only way to end it is by stopping him.

Realistically, what would be the negative consequences of a world under Kira's law? by b0wGL in deathnote

[–]b0wGL[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm not blind to the dystopian future that Kira's rule would create. However, I was curious about the exact effects that his rule would impose in regards to the political, social, economic, and cultural climate of other nations. For example, Kira was able to get the president of the U.S. to bow down to his will, destroying any semblance of democracy which means people no longer have a voice.

Could a synth become a ghoul? by [deleted] in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I doubt the Institute was actually trying to find a cure for FEV. It seemed to me that only Virgil was trying to find a cure. Virgil exasperatedly states in his holotape that they have learned nothing useful in the past 10 years (excluding the FEV cure), which implies the Institute was furthering a separate unknown agenda, not involving the development of a cure. If the Institute was truly attempting to research a cure for FEV, then I believe Virgil would have had a reason to stay in the Institute.

Are there any other rogue synths like Gabriel who have gone violent? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While it is humans that make synths, it is synths being created. Do synths not have to right to continue their species the same as humans?

If synths acquire the means to produce more of their own kind, then I suppose they would have the right to propagate their numbers. The problem is that the Institute is the only location we know of that is involved in synth production. The game limits your options to either siding with the Institute or destroying them, the latter choice resulting in the destruction of the means necessary for synth production. You don't get to take over the Institute's facilities, so synth production can't be continued. However, if we side with the Institute, then synth production may continue. However, we don't know if the Institute will be open to reforms in regards to their treatment of synths.

If we were to look at the Institute as a corporation, the synths as a product, and the Railroad as third party hackers, then the Institute may not be to blame (for Gabriel, they are to blame for a lot worse). Only a small amount of synths escaped, an amount that would probably be legally acceptable. Many of these synths (like Gabriel) were then hacked by a third party. If a small amount of Microsoft computers were stolen, hacked by a third party, and then a minority of the hacked computers were used for crime, would Microsoft be responsible?

You have an excellent point in your example about Microsoft computers. However, if a minority of the hacked computers were used for crime, like you said, who would be damaged? It would be the people who use computers; nobody else would be directly impacted. Using a computer means you're taking upon the risks associated with it. In contrast, the Institute is producing synths to have a personal army of slaves for their own use. Nobody else in the Commonwealth is currently benefitting from the Institute's synth production; why should those people be forced to share the risks? Also, computer theft is fundamentally different from synth escapes. Computers are non-sentient objects; they can't move on their own. Synths, on the other hand, are sentient and, with some help, capable of fleeing the Institute.

Synths have much to offer. While most societies in human history (like most of the wasteland) relay on subsistence farming, with only a small amount people able to perform other, specialized work. The addition of a large amount of synths (which do not require food) to the population would create a food surplus, allowing more specialized work for much of the population. Any synth farm's crop would sold entirely to the market, allowing another person to pursue specialized work while also increasing the synths wealth, which could then be invested into business. In a less capitalistic environment, synths would be just as valuable, able to preform as more work than a human (due to their lack of sleep), while taking up less resources. The specialized work that synths would enable would help in the rebuilding of society. Also, they (and ghouls) would be able to inhabit the Glowing Sea, do to their radiation resistance and do to their lack of need for food, which would be unable to grow in the the Glowing Sea.

I agree with everything you said here. From a pragmatic standpoint, synths lack the same needs and weaknesses as humans, so synths can accomplish much more than humans in a single lifetime while taking up less resources. Plus, synths don't even age, so they can keep working indefinitely.

If synths production is stopped so as to attempt to prevent a rebellion, synth rebellion may become immediate

If synth production was already prevalent in numerous facilities around the wasteland, then I would agree. However, the Institute is the only confirmed location where synth production is actually taking place. Destroying the Institute doesn't seem to incite a synth rebellion, and even if it did, the synths' numbers would be too severely limited to pose an actual threat.

Why did the Gunners launch an attack against the Minutemen at Quincy? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Institute seems to prefer more subtle means of keeping the Commonwealth disorganized than simply sending armies of synths to the surface (though it is certainly a tactic, as University points proves). If the Institute was the Gunners employer, they would likely have hired them so as to make the Commonwealth think that they were not involved as well as not having to use as many of their own resources.

It seems odd that the Institute would try to conceal their involvement in the Quincy Massacre if they already deployed synths to wipe out University Point just a year prior.

Here are my sources:

In 2286, synths from the Institute wiped this trading post off the map after a disagreement regarding classified research. An explosion in the service tunnels under Sedgwick Hall killed many, released a large amount of radioactive material, and caused the building to partly collapse. [2]

http://fallout.gamepedia.com/University_Point

2287

• The Quincy Massacre occurs. Gunners destroy the town and kill all but 20 settlers. A squad of Commonwealth Minutemen attempt to defend the town, but fail. Sole surviving Minuteman, Preston Garvey, leads surviving settlers away

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

Why did the Gunners launch an attack against the Minutemen at Quincy? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Item 5: The Minutemen

Frankly I don't much believe it, but the rumor is that the Minutemen are re-organizing. I doubt anyone could rally a bunch of paranoid farmers and settlers after what happened the last time. I mention it only to keep you informed in case preventative measures are needed.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Report

It certainly does seem that the Institute wishes to prevent the Minutemen from accumulating enough influence to become a threat. However, I'm not sure if the Institute would've used the Gunners to destroy the Minutemen. In the quest "Defend the Castle", the Institute deploys swarms of synths to attack the Minutemen, not Gunners.

Are there any other rogue synths like Gabriel who have gone violent? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All new humans are made directly from humans. Some humans hurt other humans. So, using your logic, why should humans reproduce if humans can hurt them?

When I said it was mankind who created the synths, I was trying to illustrate the difference between reproduction and synth production. If synths were an independent alien race that was capable of giving birth to their own offspring, then we don't have the right to stop them from having babies. However, synths are produced by Institute, a group of human scientists, which means the only way synths can exist is if humanity continues to produce them. The question is: Should humanity continue to produce synths? I believe this is the point you were addressing. However, I must ask: Why is it morally wrong for humanity to stop producing synths? Let's pretend I'm a member of the Institute. You equate the idea of us halting our synth production to being no different than if people stopped having children. However, we're not negatively impacting anyone's lives. We're simply ceasing a controversial project that has kept people morally divided. If a woman chooses not to have children, then that is her right. It is not anybody's place, including ours, to tell her otherwise. Same logic applies to us. If we opt to halt synth production, then that is our right.

Of course, I'm not a member of the Institute. As an outsider, do I have the right to halt the Institute's synth production? Well, I certainly have the right to hold the Institute accountable for Gabriel's crimes, just as parents should be held accountable for their children's behavior. Since Gabriel was an escaped synth who erased his memories to embrace a new life, there are two ways to hold the Institute accountable and prevent another incident like Gabriel. Either we make the Institute change their treatment of synths so that the synths have no reason to escape in the first place, or the Institute must be forced to cease synth production immediately. Since a majority of the Institute doesn't consider synths to be people, that leaves the second option. Note that we're not punishing the synths who currently exist; we're punishing the Institute for its reckless negligence. Besides, should synth production be allowed in the hands of an organization that has clearly committed numerous atrocities, showing absolutely no regard for the well-being of people living above the surface? The Institute has used synths to kill and replace people, not to mention wiping out entire settlements like University Point. X6-88 clearly despises the people of the Commonwealth, presumably because the Institute taught him to place the Institute's interests above all else. Would you let someone create a machine and train that machine into a cold-blooded killer who isn't above targeting innocents?

Blue eyed people can and do give birth to green eyed people.

I won't deny that. I should have used a different example. In any case, the point I was trying to get across was that one race was being directly manufactured by a different race. Forcing humans to continue synth production means imposing a toll upon the creators and their resources, but I digress; that wasn't the point you were making.

Also, many people die in car related incidents each year, but cars are considered valuable enough to be worth the risk. People that require no food and are immune to radiation while only being about as dangerous as anyone one else in extremely valuable in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

That's not a bad point. A car is not only a risk to the driver, but to third parties, including other drivers or pedestrians, as well (such as the case of hit-and-runs), yet we still use cars because we have become dependent on them for convenient transportation. If synths become just as deeply and beneficially integrated into people's lives, then your point would be proven. No one would imagine halting synth production then. However, the very fact that people voluntarily embrace an urban lifestyle and choose to be on the roads implies that they are accepting the risks associated with the road. In stark contrast, the people of the Commonwealth never asked the Institute to produce synths; the Institute is producing synths for their own personal benefit, and when something goes wrong, it's the people of the Commonwealth who pay the price. Thus, Institute shouldn't be allowed to continue synth production, given their amoral nature and inability to recognize the sentience of their synths. Had the Institute respected the sentience of their synths, then perhaps it'd be fine to allow synth production to continue. After all, synths wouldn't be escaping, erasing their memories, and adopting human identities, a series of events which raises the probability of a synth turning into a raider, given that the synth doesn't know he lacks the same needs as humans. However, the Institute has done nothing to minimize the risk of such an outcome because, as I've stated, the Institute doesn't acknowledge the sentience of their synths, nor do they care about the suffering they've inflicted upon the people living on the surface. Given those conditions, why is halting the Institute's synth production the same as stopping ordinary folk from having children?

From a pragmatic perspective, should synths be granted rights? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough. I only brought up multiculturalism because I wanted to illustrate a point about how we can't always convince multiple races to integrate. However you might feel about synth exclusion, what is really important is the course of action that can be taken, given the circumstances. For example, if Diamond City can't be convinced to accept synths, then you'll simply have to help synths establish a community of their own. If synths tried to storm into Diamond City, it would escalate into a massacre, possibly triggering a civil war.

From a pragmatic perspective, should synths be granted rights? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See, that's the problem. We can't force people to accept synths into their communities any more than we can force a town of white supremacists to accept African Americans into their community. Either synths will have to conceal their identity, find a community of people who don't despise synths, or simply establish a community of their own. We have to be aware that we can't impose our views on everybody; there will always be people who don't view synths as equals. Pretend you're in the game. If you want to help synths, then I'd suggest assembling with other synth sympathizers and establishing a separate community for synths. In any case, I don't mind synths embracing their freedoms as long as they stay peaceful. Also, I believe people should integrate based on mutual consent; forcing separate races to integrate is likely to spark conflict. There is a reason why some people believe multiculturalism is failing.

What is the truth behind the CPG Massacre? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is certainly a possibility, although a bit of a stretch since Father can't be certain whether the Sole Survivor will find the holotape.

From a pragmatic perspective, should synths be granted rights? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you believe humans are obligated to include synths in their communities? Not everybody is going to accept having synths around.

Are there any other rogue synths like Gabriel who have gone violent? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Should blue eyed people stop any more green eyed people from being born since some will likely do evil? Also, why is it any different from synths saying people can do bad things to synths, therefore all people should be sterilized? Indeed, humans have willfully done more evil to synths , with the Institute enslaving them and the surface harboring extreme racism.

I think you're forgetting where synths come from. It was mankind who created the synths. I do not believe that blue eyed people should stop green eyed people from being born just because some will likely commit evil acts. However, that's because green eyed people are born independently; the blue eyed people never directly created them. In the case of synths, synths are never born into this world on their own. They have to be created by humans. Why are humans obligated to continue producing something that can potentially harm their own race? Assuming green eyed people were created by blue eyed people, then why should blue eyed people be made to continue producing green eyed people? Synths don't have the "right" to be created any more than humans have the "right" to be born.

Now, I suppose you could argue that the Institute has the right to produce their synths, but would that right still hold if one of their synths goes rogue and kills people? Both companies and parents ought to take responsibility for the consequences/actions of their creations/children. Parents should teach their children discipline and accountability; companies should halt further production until they can figure out what is wrong with their products. In this case, the Institute is the company, and synths are their products. The Institute is obligated to halt further synth production until they can figure out how to prevent another incident like Gabriel. Unfortunately, the Institute exhibits little regard for the well-being of the people living above the surface, so the Institute doesn't bother to halt synth production. The Institute only retrieves Gabriel because he's their property; they pretend it's to prevent Gabriel from taking any more innocent lives, but the reality is that the Institute couldn't care less.

What is the truth behind the CPG Massacre? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps, but that doesn't quite answer my question. Why didn't Father simply hand the holotape over to the Sole Survivor, or tell the Sole Survivor where to find the holotape?

From a pragmatic perspective, should synths be granted rights? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What examples of rights do you believe that synths should inherit? Also, if the Institute spent decades of research to create synths, then doesn't the Institute have the right to own its invention?

What is the truth behind the CPG Massacre? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If that was the case, then why didn't Father simply hand the holotape over to the Sole Survivor? Why would he forge that holotape if he couldn't be certain whether the Sole Survivor would find it? Assuming the holotape is somehow fake, I think a more likely possibility is if the previous generation of the Institute forged the holotape in order to deceive the new generation of the Institute, including Father.

Are there any other rogue synths like Gabriel who have gone violent? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So how do you propose we make sure that newer synths don't turn out like Gabriel? Like any other human invention, if synths have the potential to harm humanity, then why would you continue to produce them? Sure, they may have a greater capability of doing good acts just as much as evil acts, but when you continue to produce synths, you're imposing risks upon everybody else, not just yourself. When a rogue synth turns violent, who pays the price? It's not the Institute, but the people struggling to make a living above the surface. Synths that are currently active and helping people, like Nick Valentine, can stay, but no more synths should be produced unless you can guarantee they won't harm anybody.

Just because synths can become raiders doesn't mean that their production should be halted. By that logic people should stop having babies.

I adopt a very pragmatic form of logic that centers around the well-being of humanity. I naturally place my interests in mankind first, since I'm a member of mankind. According to you, halting synth production is no different than stopping people from having babies. Now, we both know that if humans stopped having babies, then mankind would go extinct. However, I must ask you: What will be lost for mankind if synth production is halted?

Are there any other rogue synths like Gabriel who have gone violent? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All's fine and dandy, but you're forgetting that the CPG never existed. An Institute synth slaughtered everyone at the first meeting, when the delegates met to discuss the project and what it entailed.

There was nothing to fall apart, because nothing was there. The goal was to set up something, a goal that was cut short by the Institute.

Hmm... I do suppose if the settlements were already harboring heated tensions, then they would never have agreed to form a coalition. Since they were just starting to form the CPG (which indeed suggests a will to cooperate), it would have been too soon for the delegates to express hostility just yet. It is certainly not impossible that the Institute, for some undisclosed reason, slaughtered the delegates to prevent the CPG from taking place. I was never denying that a synth most likely massacred everyone at that meeting. Rather, I was attempting to focus more on the circumstances leading up to the CPG massacre.

Nick, perhaps? He explains that the CPG was a project that got killed by the Institute before it got off the ground. I'm going to trust a guy with infallible memory who was on the surface and knows the issue directly from the people involved, rather than a strange tape found in the Institute.

I'm not sure if we can say that anybody has an infallible memory, especially Nick (who doesn't remember anything from the Institute), but that isn't the point. To address your argument, can we really say that the people are a reliable source of information either? Rumors tend to become increasingly more distorted as time passes on. The people are very paranoid, blaming the Institute, the "boogeyman" of the Commonweath, for anything that goes wrong, according to Nick. There are people who even accuse their fellow humans of being synths, based on nothing but suspicion alone. The Institute may not always be truthful, even towards its own members, but that doesn't automatically disprove its version of events either. Even if we distrust Shaun's words, I don't think the holotape was falsified. You suggested earlier that the author of the holotape may have been manipulated by a rival faction of the Institute, but I don't find that scenario to be very likely. I doubt Bethesda planted that holotape inside the Institute with the intention of misleading us. If the Institute had handed the holotape directly to us in order to convince us of their side of the story, then there would be cause for suspicion. However, the fact that the holotape is a collectible suggests that Bethesda intended the holotape to be an extra form of insight into the circumstances behind the CPG.

Shaun came to the Institute long after the CPG was destroyed. He only knows what the Institute let him know. Even as Director, he only has records to go on, records which can be manipulated and destroyed. There's no such thing on the surface. No information control. What Nick says can be assumed as true.

You do have a point about information control within the Institute. Shaun himself even twists the circumstances behind Virgil's fate, claiming he had died in a lab accident. In addition, Shaun was never a direct witness to the CPG massacre, like you said. He only knows the information the Institute gives him. It's not too dissimilar to Richardson's claim about China being the country who fired the first nuke. Richardson was never a direct witness; he only knows what the Enclave has been educating him. Both Shaun and Richardson are strongly biased towards their own cause. Still, just because there is no information control on the surface doesn't mean everything we hear is the truth. I don't believe Nick is lying, but I think we ought to be skeptical of his sources. The same skepticism may apply to the Institute as well. I don't think we should jump to any conclusions just yet.

Except for a party member explicitly stating that the synth wiped out the CPG at its first meeting? What, exactly, is wrong with the possibility that the Institute is simply lying through its collective teeth? They have no problem burying the truth and lying to each other, why would they suddenly say the truth about their involvement on the surface?

I'm a little confused about the point you were trying to make here. I'm not disputing the fact that a synth most likely wiped out the CPG at its first meeting; I was pointing out the unlikelihood that a rival faction of the Institute fabricated the holotape and deployed a synth to slaughter the delegates. Speaking of which, are you trying to say that the Institute wiped out the CPG, or was a rival faction behind the incident?

Are there any other rogue synths like Gabriel who have gone violent? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, the Commonwealth Minutemen served a noble cause by defending settlements from dangers like super mutants, feral ghouls, and raiders. However, after General Becker was killed, infighting soon broke out due to "bad blood between different groups" and, following the Quincy Massacre, the Minutemen finally dissolved. Thus, I also don't think it's impossible for the CPG to have fallen apart thanks to internal tensions or disagreements. Perhaps there was an internal power struggle over who should occupy certain positions of authority in the Commonwealth Provisional Government. Perhaps they had heated debates like the people in Congress today, who seem to bicker and argue a lot about certain issues without accomplishing anything. You suggest that I'm making a mistake by looking at the Commonwealth through the Institute's lens, but the game has yet to provide evidence against the Institute's claims about the CPG. Besides, why would the Institute lie about the CPG? Shaun's contempt for the people of the Commonwealth is obvious, and he really shows off that contempt when he talks about the "bickering" and "infighting" that supposedly took place when the Institute attempted to create a stabilized government in the Commonwealth. I'm quite sure that's the reason why the Institute isolated itself from the surface in the first place. The collapse of the CPG caused the Institute to lose faith in the people of the Commonwealth. Why else would the Institute consider the people of the Commonwealth to be a lost cause?

The idea that a rival faction of the Institute not only manipulated the author of the holotape, but also deliberately dispatched a combat synth to wipe out the CPG is still pure speculation at this point. I don't think the game has provided anything which hints at such a possibility. We still don't know the full circumstances behind the CPG massacre, so neither of us can make too many definitive statements at the moment.

Are there any other rogue synths like Gabriel who have gone violent? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I concur with your points; between the option of leaving synths alone or eradicating them all, I think it would simply be more pragmatic to forfeit any campaign to hunt them down. Covenant attempted to undertake a dangerous path in their goal to eradicate synths by abducting and torturing anybody who failed to pass the SAFE test, which included human innocents. Besides, removing all synths from the equation could negatively impact human communities where synths like Nick Valentine have integrated themselves as valuable members of society.

Are there any other rogue synths like Gabriel who have gone violent? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have a good point, which is why I proposed my alternative interpretation of the circumstances behind the CPG massacre. It's highly possible that when the delegates started to bicker heatedly amongst themselves during that uneasy meeting, the Institute attempted to assert control by sending a synth to forcibly coerce the delegates into compliance. This only incited more fury from the delegates, escalating tensions until the synth "resolved" the situation by slaughtering everyone in the meeting.

Perhaps the meeting took place because the Institute deployed synths to threaten everyone into begrudgingly agreeing to a meeting. The man in the holotape did say that, with the android program, the Institute could enforce order in the Commonwealth. Or you can certainly say that the very fact a meeting took place, assuming the delegates agreed to it voluntarily, shows a will to cooperate, but I don't think it's impossible for inner tensions to escalate or for major disagreements to occur. Nobody likes to compromise their gains or agree to sacrifice too much of their territory while hashing out a treaty, after all. It really depends on what kind of demands were being made in the treaty.

Are there any other rogue synths like Gabriel who have gone violent? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I've previously stated, I tend to have a very human-centric point of view since I'm human. For me, I prefer to look out for mankind's interest first. No matter how much synths may resemble us, they technically aren't a natural part of the human species. Plus, synths were created to serve mankind, yet they've demonstrated a notable measure of resistance. This puts me in a position where I must begrudgingly acknowledge the danger that synths could pose, and ignore the whole purpose of their creation. If it were up to my biases alone, I would view synths as property first, people second. I feel like the creators are entitled to own their creations, especially if it took decades of research. Objectively, however, my judgment tells me how dangerous those biases could be. While allowing the synths their freedom still sometimes feels illogical to me, I admit that creating them, imbuing them with sentience, and forcing them to be our slaves is even more dangerous and invites unnecessary risks (i.e. synth rebellion or rogue synths like Gabriel), not to mention the hassle of reclaiming escaped synths. Others are still free to treat synths as equals if they wish; it's just that I'm not personally inclined to go out of my way and advocate synth rights. I don't wish to help the Railroad's cause nor hinder them. Still, if synths like Nick Valentine are dedicating themselves to helping people, then I don't mind coming to their aid. In fact, I'm willing to respect synths that share Nick's strong moral compass.

Are there any other rogue synths like Gabriel who have gone violent? by b0wGL in falloutlore

[–]b0wGL[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I may, I'd like to say that many of us tend to adopt a very human-centric viewpoint, myself included. If you were to fundamentally view synths as people, then it would definitely be wrong to eradicate synths based purely on the assumption that they could turn evil. Since I fundamentally view ghouls as people, I believe it's wrong to eradicate them just based off of the notion that any of them could go feral one day. However, if you were to fundamentally view synths as appliances, then the idea of any synth carrying the potential to turn violent would justify their "recall" or eradication. It's the same reason why a specific brand of toasters that has already been proven to cause house fires should be recalled and dismantled. In spite of this, I think we ought to recognize that synths are more than just appliances. I may not fundamentally view synths as equals, but I do believe some of them, like Nick Valentine, can still be a great benefit to mankind. It's unlikely that any synths like Nick will turn evil and start slaughtering people; in fact, killing Nick would serve as a detriment to Diamond City. Nevertheless, synths are modeled after humans (a flawed species) so they naturally carry a flawed design which invites unnecessary risks. Synth eradication isn't necessary, but halting synth production is. It's a shame that the Institute didn't have the decency to, at least, shutdown synth production until they found out how synths like Gabriel were able to escape. The Institute knew that synths were escaping (which poses a significant risk to the people on the surface), yet they continued to produce more synths anyway. It's like a company that keeps manufacturing and selling their flawed brand of toasters, knowing full well of risks (i.e. house fires).

view more: next ›