Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout: New Vegas Discussion' started by gongos, Nov 25, 2010.
Uhhhhh no. I was defending the Legion.
I think the best quote is Harlan Ellison, "we are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions."
I would say that a state with a clear constitution has more chance for longevity then some empire forged by a single men, based around one ideology or cult. - As I said earlier the Roman empire existed for a very long time but it changed quite often its "form". Like from a republic with a senate, form of "governememt" with some elected consul (consulatus) to an empire with emperor.
It is far more likely that those empires fall with their leaders. It happened many times that way. Alexander, Caesar, attila, Napoleon etc. At leats the US proved that a state with a constitution can exist for quite some time. And they are not the only ones. As said a "clear" democracy as we have it since the early 20 century is a rather new concept and we have to say how long that can prevail.
Oh yes, in a post-apocalyptic society there are prices to be paid for stability. What you seem not to realize is that there are factions offering stability and better living conditions without a similar tradeoff. The Legion is simply arriving too late for the Mojave/West Coast, where even if stability isn't there in rulers, there's more stability in quality of living.
Your appeal to moral relativism is what it is, but this is basically where your argument falls apart. The Legion simply is not necessary to improve the future chances of humanity, there are better options.
And who cares about the longevity of empires? Empires and democracies both rise and fall, we're not planning for the future here, we're surviving and making people's lives better. In that, NCR and others (including House) are better than the Legion.
Well as said it depends how narrow you want to use the term "democracy". The concept of the governments as we know it from the past 60 years is quite new - which I would call post WW2 democracy. A republic can be a democracy but it has not to be one. Though The US is at least a republic with a constitution since the 1790s. Sweden has I think a parliament since the early 1800. Same for a few others. And there are many nations which have a tradition of "voting" their leaders and at least forcing their kings to accept the constitutions and allow the people to elect some parliament. As you see here I use the term "democracy" very very loosely. But governments and their politics evolve and change over time. The German government today is not completely the same like during the early 20s or 30s and even though that Britain had already since the medevial ages the "magna charta" it works today not in the same way as during the 1200 century. Same for the US where it was not uncommon to send supposed communists away for interrogation in the 50s (something of which people would call McCarthyism). What ever that means ... And today the politic is slightly different.
What has that to do with the fact if the US is a democracy or not ? How nations threat other nations is a whole different story.
Are you aware that he has a brain tumor, right?
He is right. Even House states the same. It won't happen in a day but the people are following Caesar, not the Legion.
I could say the same about the NCR. After Tandi died the NCR lost its purpose and its cause, now its just a buncch of bickering faction fighting over a sinking ship.
The first incarnation of a parliament in Sweden appeared in the 1720's after the disastrous absolute monarchy under Charles XII. Of course, at first it was little more than a club for the nobility and rich gentry to sit around and argue with each other.
Only, you can't. The NCR survived past Tandi's demise and has good chances of surviving through its' current weak leadership. What the NCR is is a behemoth of a bureaucracy where the people in charge are too far removed from the people to see the real problems in NCR. Their continued expansion east shows us that they can keep on progressing, but that they need to adress some of their urgent problems if they are to maintain the superiority they currently enjoy.
See, Ceasar's Legion is a jab against totalitarian regimes and how they need their leader to be succesful. They can rise to glory fast but they'll fade just as quickly once their leader dies.
NCR on the other hand is meant to show the problem with modern representative democracies and bureaucracy, where you sacrifice flexibility and quick decisionmaking in favor of an extremly stable system that can exist mostly on its' own in spite of weak leadership. But it does so at the cost of corruption and a system where the individual has a hard time to rise to prominence.
There's a reason why most quests revolving around the NCR involves having to deal with corruption, cutting through red tape or people disillusioned with the system they are living in. Because the NCR doesn't need any one person to plod on, it only needs its' bureaucracy to trudge on uninterrupted. Ceasar's Legion on the other hand only needs Caesar and without Caesar it will quickly crumble.
Agreed, with exception of House all the charismatic NPC's are Legion. I mean compare Moores litle pep talk about how the NCR is here for progress against the Legion who are bad to women to Ceasars speech forging a Pax Romana and reforging humanity so it will last.
I mean come on who gave a more rousing speech to you before the final battle, Kimbal or Lianus.
I dislike the NCR for the same reason Ceasar does. If the NCR wins they will preserve everything that is weak and sickly in humanity, greed, pity, selfeshness, if the Legion wins they will promote benificial triats in the human species, comradship, duty, courage, serving a cause greater than yourself. I hate the NCR not because of what first recon, did, I use it to point out how empty the human rights speech is, I hate them because the end of result of the NCR will not be a terrifying NCR ranger in black armour with a machine gun, the end result will be a freeside bum.
In the modern world preserving whats weak in humanity merely stagnates human progres, however in the fallout world it could potentially lead to the exstenction of humanity.
As boone states the Legion have a succession lined up, the NCR on the other hand is far more vulnerable to assination. If the Courier launches nukes at the NCR it may well cut off the head of the beast.
Then shouldn't you just side with House? I can kind of see not wanting the NCR in the saddle, but how is the Legion the better option of the three?
I do side with House, he's the best option by far. But this is a NCR vs Legion debate.
Basicly heres the choice
1. House will guide humanity to survival in a humane and subtle way.
2. Ceasar will force humanity to survive in a brutal and blunt way.
3. The NCR will plod along, making humanity progressivly more and more sick, ignoring the long term problems apocolyptic humanity faces and only focussing on the short term wellfare of its citizens.
Um, Kimball dies-elections, Caesar dies-Legion dies. And the nukes part of the post is mindnumbing garbage.
Wartime elections can be difficult.
Thiers no evidence showing this besides the opinion of House and Marcus.
I think Marcus is just bitter, he FEV would unite humanity instead turning them into mentally challenged sexually impotent freaks and can't stand that Caesar is will succeed were the Master failed.
House just thinks everyone except him is an idiot.
That's your argument? Wartime elections can be difficult? But a death of a cult leader dictator who created a nation by indoctrination from birth and reigns it supremely as it's demi-god is more viable?
As already mentioned by others here. The reasons people here bring to defend the Legion and attack the NCR is a double morale in my eyes. If the Legions is using "violence" its "alright". If the NCR tries it its kinda "wrong". Elections in a war time are difficult thus the NCR is complicated. But the possible death of the absolute leader will not hurt the Legion.
Guys. No one here will attack you if you "like" the Legion more then the NCR for what ever reason. But you have to simply stay reasonable. I mean we are not arguing here between Stalin and Hitler of where you can not get a concencus. Even if you have a crush for the Legion you have to simply accept the fact that the way how they are shown in Vegas shows them in a very bad light and not as a very viable solution for the Vegas territory.
What's with this talk of elections if Kimball dies? That's why Vice Presidents exist.
When Tandi died, her vice president, Joanna Tibbett was sworn into office (and then voted out later on).
I never once said it was wrong or even kinda wrong. I have been totally consistent in my judgement of all the Fallout factions. Heres my view, while humanities survival is still in jepardy all other forms of morality other than long term survival don't matter. I have not strayed from this viewpoint once, I only support the Legion over the NCR because I think they have a better shot at insuring humanities longterm survival.
For all those that say that Caesar's legion will die after Caesar is dead, the ending where he dies says that Lanius took charge and civilization brutal as it was began to form in the Mojave. No talk of a crumbling Legion at all.
You're about 200 years late buddy. Maybe in F1, maybe.
Sure. Too bad the endings talk of the short term results of your actions, not the long term ones. Marcus and House talk of a few years, not few weeks.