Hello there! We are conducting a survey to better understand the user experience in making a first edit. If you have ever made an edit on Gamepedia, please fill out the survey. Thank you!

Talk:Lyons' Brotherhood of Steel

From The Vault - Fallout Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive.png
Archives: #1
Talkpage.png
This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the page "Lyons' Brotherhood of Steel".
It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article. Please use the forums for these purposes.

New name[edit source]

Morgan refers to this chapter as Lyons' Brotherhood of Steel. Should we move it? http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 07:29, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, we definitely shouldn't move it. --Kris User Hola.jpg 11:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Why? http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 11:46, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Because that's not what it's called, officially, by the real Brotherhood of Steel in California. If we were to change it to anything it should be to what they refer to it as, don't you think? And I believe they refer to it as the East Coast Brotherhood of Steel but I'm not sure on that. --Kris User Hola.jpg 12:42, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sarah's Age[edit source]

Was Sarah 8 years old or 8 months old when they left the Core Region? People keep changing it back and forth and I don't know which one's right. I'm not even sure what the source is for 8 to begin with. --Kris User Hola.jpg 22:04, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'll find a source, right after I wrap my head around the concept of taking a child on a military expedition across the entire nuked out continent. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 22:39, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
I think the concept is a bit ridiculous. Why would you take a child with you on an expedition? The child would be a hindrance and the Brotherhood would have to waste a lot of resources to protect it. Also, it's kinda weird how Sarah survived the entire expedition, including the journey through the Pitt. Nukey (talk) 22:42, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
It would make more sense if she was 18 years old than if she was 8 of anything. --Kris User Hola.jpg 23:42, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
It would. It would've made sense if they had her born in the Capital Wasteland instead of at the beginning of the trip. Nukey (talk) 23:52, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
Even as young as 15 would make sense - old enough to stay outta the way and hold her own for a moment as needed, but too young to be an initiate. --Kris User Hola.jpg 00:57, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Considering sarah is about the players age the lone wanderer first meets her i'd have to say she was born when they arrived in the Capital wasteland as the BoS arrived in the Capital Wasteland 20-30 years before the Lone Wanderer is born.-bleep196- 01:02, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Someone made a false edit to Sarah Lyons - she's actually 30 years old, not 23 (born in 2247, not 2254). --Kris User Hola.jpg 01:05, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Really? 30 jeez and she supposedly has a relationship with the Lone Wanderer (Male character that is) that would make here at least 11 years his elder meaning she's a cougar by definition. -bleep196- 01:08, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Liberty Prime[edit source]

Should Liberty Prime be mentioned in the Technology section? Thomasb2k 04:28, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Future Games[edit source]

In future games I expect this group to have a large scale war with NCR. It seems logical that the East Coast Brotherhood will begin to expand its reach back to the West, similar to the NCR moving into Nevada. I think one of the Central States will serve as a good host. Who's side will you take? Broken Record Fan 04:41, May 31, 2011

Check my blog for why it ISN'T a good plot. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 21:13, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest... that felt more like you were critiquing Fallout 3. Though what you said was well thought out, you went into too much detail. You kept saying that there was no way the Brotherhood would become stay a superpower in the long term because of a lack of agriculture on the East Coast... but if you are going off of that then there should not be a soul alive left in the Capital wasteland and the Enclave could not have survived underground all those years. That was more of Bethesda not going into enough depth with their game. A mistake. You also repeatedly said Lyons was an incompetent leader. Your blog is mainly about you giving your two cents on Bethesda's storytelling abilities. The game made it pretty clear that the choice that supports the Brotherhood is the "correct" choice and it wants you to side with Lyons as, what is supposed to be, an intelligent leader of a good organization. And though I can agree with you that the story was seriously flawed, I enjoyed the ride and I felt compelled from beginning to end. I get that you do not like Fallout 3... which is absolutely fine with me. The problem with what you are saying about the East Coast Brotherhood not surviving is that if/when Bethesda continues on after Fallout 3's story arc... they will continue the franchise in their direction whether or not you approve. Broken Record Fan 04:41, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Possible Edit?[edit source]

This article states that the BoS are known to hire mercs like Reilly's Rangers. Is this canon? Or is it possibly implicated via dialogue? ~ KingHitmanlane

It does say on Reilly's terminal about a contact in the Brotherhood and in a small Free quest a note say's about the Brotherhood getting the Girl (Cheryl)to deliver a package to the ranger's HQ (possibly payment). Also i think the Geomapper quest is the Brotherhood hiring mercs to find locations of interest in D.C. Given the Brotherhood's small size compared to the vast expanse of the Capital wasteland i'd say it is most possible that mercenary contracts are made.

Thanks

where does it mention them in new vegas?

This article is on the Capital Wasteland Brotherhood, not the Mojave Wasteland. ~ KingHitmanlane

although veronica does reference them by saying they had a small civil war on the east coast over their normally strong isolationist tendencies(if you're trying to find out what happened by checking new vegas i think they left it pretty open from what i've seen. not sure who wins, fo3 seems to hint/assume lyons is supposed to, but veronica saying west bos in fnv having contact(and the context of her statement) sound like maybe outcasts did. imo lyons winning was cannon based on broken steel but we'll see)

Oh the Irony..[edit source]

The outcasts left the Brotherhood because they where sick of helping the locals rather than focusing on technology recovery. After the events of 'broken steel' the brotherhood has more than succeeded in their original mission having

1. reactivated liberty prime 2. created a new weapon (Tesla cannon) 3. A ton of enclave tech to play with 4. Control over a large water purifier 5. The trust of the locals 6. Not become a bunch of xenophobic ass holes

This makes them more successful than both the Outcasts and other sections of the brotherhood.

Not really. Liberty Prime is destroyed forever (sorry Rothschild, you can't fix alone what an entire army of scientists with access to limitless resources built), Tesla cannon is a pre-War design, while the last four are not going to happen, since Lyons is an idiot and most likely will use all this stuff to find another White Whale to hunt (if he ever manages to hunt down the supermutants). http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 18:35, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Don't like him much, do you? Didn't other sections of the brotherhood collapse? Making the Lyons branch more successful by comparison?

Also Owen Lyons was due to retire soon, his daughter would take over. She seems fairly level headed. The super mutants are running out of F.E.V and have dwindling numbers, they would die out eventually.

What do you mean the last 4 are not gonna happen they HAVE happened , they DO have enclave tech (vertibirds , Mk II power armour ) , they DO control a massive water purifier , they DO have the trust of the locals (as shown by having local recruits like reddin , trading technology for guards with rivet city) and are no longer a bunch of Xenophobic nutters .. my only problem is lyons obsessing over the water caravans , but he is otherwise a good leader , but is soon going to pass on leadership to sarah lyons , who also seems like a good leader .... ( also , the campaign against the super mutants has been succesful , since the super mutants themselves state that the brotherhood are killing too many of them) ... but of course , tagaziel refuses to admit he is wrong .. am i right?

It's somewhat amusing to see an anon who can't even figure out how to sign his posts respond to a nine month old post. For starters, familiarize yourself with my Brotherhood is dead blog post at tagaziel.blogspot.de (not URL'd as a test of competence). Tagaziel 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Overt negative subjectivity apparent[edit source]

... The title says it all; honestly, I'm not sure what happened after the transfer to the new wiki-service, but the pages dealing with the East Coast Brotherhood of Steel and, indeed, anything related to Fallout 3 have become laden with conjecture and even outright fabrication/misrepresentation such that they read more like someone's vindictive ranting about said game rather than a truly neutral overview; although, before the move, there was still such conjecture present (e.g. that bit about the East Coast BoS effectively having overshadowed their West Coast brethren), the aforementioned articles were much more neutral and useful as an overview of the material. While I'm glad users have clearly recognized this with those "clean-up" tags being attached to the relevant pages, the lack of progress this far after the move indicates either a lack of will or an active opposition by select elements preventing said clean-up from occurring.

While I would argue that the earlier, more "optimistic" view of the East Coast Brotherhood (and the East Coast as a whole) is more fitting given it seems (for the most part, sans examples of overt subjectivity I noted before) to derive from the most rational extrapolations of trends and events from what information we have, I also know anything related to Fallout 3 is a touchy subject and, thus, even the best-intentioned edits risk eliciting exaggerated reactions from some within the community; as such, as a means of rendering these articles more neutral, may I recommend simply removing any and all conjecture on relative strengths, conditions, and/or projections of the future for the East Coast? It seems to me that would satisfy all parties while also preventing any sort of (further) slide by these articles into naught more than a vehicle for the sophomoric exhortations of certain elements with an axe to grind.

  • Contact username on Wikia: Haegemonia

--50.68.10.44 05:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see any overt negativity. We simply removed fanboy level wishful thinking (Greg Bear is the only Pitt kid remaining in the CW, IT MIGHT MEAN LYONS SPREAD OUT) and replaced much of it with hard-cited, referenced content basing on direct character statements from the game. At this point pretty much everything is supported by available in-game evidence. If it sounds negative then it's a result of the game's own portrayal of the faction, if you actually listen to what the NPCs say. Tagaziel 06:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly I agree with Tagaziel. Secondly I am currently trying to re-write this page, althugh I have currently become not sure in how to procede.--Ant2242 08:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you can show me the evidence which says the East Coast BoS lacks the ability to understand the Enclave tech, at least inasmuch as the Outcasts? How about that whole bit about lack of resources when, following the events of Broken Steel, they say almost the exact opposite? What about Elder Lyons noting that, with Project Purity functional, he believes their may come a time in the near future when the wasteland isn't a "wasteland" anymore? Indeed, why phrase things in such a way that Liberty Prime is highly unlikely to be rebuilt, when the only major evidence you have is such that "Well if the people before the war couldn't do it with all their resources, then there is no way Rothchild and his group could" (something made even more specious as a baseline for predictions given Rothchild and his group were able to get Liberty Prime to function in the first place, something all those people before the war with their resources could not do)? What about phrasing things like almost all the Enclave Tech was destroyed during the bombing of the Mobile Crawler, when the info we are given suggests that a good amount of it actually survived, not to mention all the Vertibirds, experimental tech, etc. being stored outside the Crawler in Adams Air Force Base, Raven Rock (sans what is destroyed by its self-destruction and/or the BoS attack), etc.? And let's not even get into all the tech available to them on Mothership Zeta and the Operation Anchorage Facility through the Lone Wanderer, the agricultural (and also tech) from Point Lookout (and, depending on player actions, Harold in Oasis), and even (though this is a bigger stretch) possible access to a functioning steel mill in The Pitt?
Understand, I'm not trying to spite you guys or anything, just show you how the information in the articles is misleading and/or specious when compared to the bigger picture (although, full disclosure, I rather liked Fallout 3 as my favourite game in the series [though, funny enough, I've played almost every other game in the series more than Fallout 3 except for Tactics and BoS]). In all honesty, considering all the tech the East Coast BoS has access to (never really got why the name was changed to Lyons' BoS, unless it was meant to further impugn on the relevant chapter by making it seem less important) through its conflicts with the Enclave and such, access to some of the greatest minds in the known world at Rivet City, and (most importantly) a means to rapidly and completely remove the radiation and other contaminants (except, perhaps, the modified FEV) from the marine and ground-water via Project Purity (something truly unique to the East Coast, literally allowing rapid terraforming of the surrounding landscape via hydrological remediation) in the Capital Wasteland (and, perhaps, beyond if they can discover an effective and reliable way of replicating the technology), I honestly don't see how you can say this overtly bleak and fatalistic view of the East Coast is anything but patent subjective negativity. I mean, Bethesda went to the East Coast for a reason: It wanted to create a new land where it could base future games without all the issues continuing on the West Coast would create while also allowing them to create a unique identity for the series all their own. Since Bethesda now, in all ways, controls the Fallout series lock, stock, and barrel, I expect almost all future games will be based or heavily involve the East Coast, such that the superfluously bleak future being painted doesn't make sense given its almost certain future usage.
Once again, I get the issues you have with Fallout 3; it's foreign, the writing is different (and, thus, seems bad, but you must remember that is your opinion), and it creates a new identity for the series you "grew up with". I know this won't sway you from thinking you're in the right on this, but it should make you realize the presence of enough dissenting opinions and information that, even if you don't decide to balance everything out with the "other side" of things, it should (hopefully) convince you to consider removing all this conjecture. --(Haegemonia)50.68.10.44 15:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
All I see is a long-winded rant about how the Brotherhood is amazing and how we're terrible people for painting them as anything else. The entirety of your argument is based on a 'good' Lone Wanderer playthrough, and that's cool, but because New Vegas didn't expand on any of Fallout 3's canon we can't just outright assume that everything in the Capital is a complete paragonic cakewalk (it's happened before that the canon was decided in the favor of the baddies: see Vault City's annexation and the ruthlessness of the Bishop kid).
Do you have any problems with other such faction articles? Is the NCR article too positive, are the Enclave and Legion articles too negative? Nitty the Kitty! 16:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't need to act so defensively, once again, I'm simply trying to present an alternative viewpoint. Likewise, if you were to reread my posts, I already acknowledged that it would be similarly wrong to present things as being a "paradise" out east. --(Haegemonia)50.68.10.44 16:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Then if you openly acknowledge that if it would be wrong to assume that everything is hunky-dory, what's wrong with the article? Nitty the Kitty! 16:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
As the articles in question paint everything too far in the opposite direction; once again, all I've recommended is to either balance out the information or remove conjecture. Rather than say the Brotherhood has dwindling resources and a lack of control, why not also note, depending on player actions, it may be in a position to establish firm control over the wastes and beyond? That the articles mention the destruction of the Citadel and the "decay" scenario and not this one should readily show how things have become overly biased. If you don't wish to do that and, as you said, there is precious little from New Vegas to give any idea what has happened, then why mention anything at all about the future of the East Coast? --(Haegemonia)50.68.10.44 16:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"never really got why the name was changed to Lyons' BoS"
Because they just called themselves so... and they went rogue. Why call them east BOS, if this is not their name? The main problem in your case is, that you apparently don't read footnotes. Do you have any evidence for your arguments and your vision of their history? Just write that in article, along with reference, where's problem? This is FAN wiki, where we all support our wiki for fun. U can contribute, but hey, better start to criticze someone... really, no comment. --Languorous_Maiar 18:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I don't understand your points, Hegemonia. Every point you raise is already answered by provided citations. The state of the organization is covered by cross-referenced citations from multiple NPCs about how weakened it is at the beginning of the conflict. There is zero mention of any kind of sudden influx of new recruits at any point of Broken Steel. The same goes for the rest.
It is apparent, however, that under the guise of "neutrality" you are attempting to insert a terrible amount of fanfiction and put the article on a pro-Lyons bias. One needs to look no further than your mentions of Operation Anchorage, Mothership Zeta, Point Lookout, the Oasis and the Pitt. There is exactly *zero* references of any kind nor any suggestions, pointers, remarks, comments or even gestures that suggest the possibility of Lyons intending to do anything with any of the location, their remote location notwithstanding. Any attempt to link it through the persona of the Lone Wanderer is unfounded, baseless speculation.
You ignore all references containing direct citations from non-player characters. You ignore direct statements from multiple NPCs in the game that the Capital Wasteland is a hellish place with a very bleak outlook on life for everywhere. You ignore statements made by members of Lyons' own organization that it is in trouble and what relief efforts are implemented post-Purifier are badly organized and supported. Then you also attempt to attribute our bias to some kind of prejudice against Fallout 3 and use a poorly conceived argumentum ad hominem.
Bottom line: The article in its present state represents a faithful, properly referenced image of the faction as it actually exists in the game, as well as in-game evidence provided by the developers, instead of relying on biased, unreliable and unconfirmed claims of optimism made by Lyons and his daughter, or baseless speculation/fan fiction. It is also completely free of baseless speculation compounded by wishful thinking that you campaign to include. As such, the article will stay as it is and any attempts to insert unreferenced speculation, particularly concerning Mothership Zeta, Operation Anchorage, the Pitt or Point Lookout will be dealt with employing extreme rationality. Tagaziel 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
^ What he said. User:AvatarUser talk:Avatar 19:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind then, clearly no one here wants to have a rational discussion about matters; you consistently ignore that I was simply offering different avenues of thought rather than concrete examples for the articles and have consistently denigrated me despite my never once impugning any of you. What's more, that none of you see how you're enshrining fanon as fact and, even worse, respond to well-intentioned criticism with projection (I almost burst out laughing at your accusation that I was partaking in argumentum ad hominem) and denial goes some way to explain why traffic to this site ranks significantly lowers than that of the Wikia Fallout site. Decry this as whatever you want, but I don't really care either way, I was simply trying to help. --(Haegemonia)50.68.10.44 20:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Show clearly where's the fanom? --Languorous_Maiar 20:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. If you have references PLEASE add them. We would love more references in the articles!:) P.S. like I said before I am rewriting this particular page, ...though I have come under some writers' block at the moment.:[--Ant2242 20:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the interest and the acceptance of assistance on your part Ant2242 (you've, thus far, been the only one not to blindly attack me or become extraordinarily defensive, thus why I am responding despite my intention not to do so anymore) but, for reasons that should be obvious, I have lost the will to assist here in the face of certain elements. In any case, I wish you well in your endeavour, but I am ending things off here; thank you again for your civility and perhaps I'll edit here again one day when the mood has become more conducive for it. --(Haegemonia)50.68.10.44 20:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No one here attacked you. On the contrary, it was you who decided to use an ad hominem, attributing the perceived bias in this article (while ignoring an exhaustive list of references supporting the content) to personal defects of our own, implying fanaticism, biased reporting and emotions clouding our judgement. You also repeatedly ignore requests to cite sources for various claims you make.
Here's the deal: The Vault is devoted to factual accuracy. We are not interested in "different avenues of thought," only hard, cold facts. If you can provide a citation that proves your claims, then we'll be happy to include it. But wild speculation and ignorance of source material will be, well, ignored.
And last, UESP.net also ranks below The Elder Scrolls Wiki, FYI. Tagaziel 09:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It is very ironic, how u call our defense "blindly attack" or "extraordinarily defensive", when u actually "blindly attack" Tagaziel's vision of Lyons' BOS history (confirmed by references). Of course, our words are attack, but yours are "rational discussion" or "well-intentioned criticism". I hope there no will be day when you come back. (Actually, this is blindly attack.) ;)
Ironic is also "to this site ranks significantly lowers than that of the Wikia Fallout site." because Fallout Wikia copied a lot of stuff from the Vault. (like Fallout: New Vegas endings.)
--Languorous_Maiar 22:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

GECK references[edit source]

Henry Casdin's dialogue: ... calling themselves the Lyons' Brotherhood of Steel
I've gone over a lot of his dialogue and I haven't found this quote. That's why I removed it in the first place. Since I cannot upload and check his GECK dialogue for it, I have asked for it to check.--Ant2242 00:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It's there. My word on it. I'll check it again, once I bring the damn GECK in working order. Tagaziel 12:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

External recruitment[edit source]

"In the original Fallout the Vault Dweller is able to join the Brotherhood of Steel, proving that external recruitment occurred as far back as the Brotherhood's original appearance."
That statement is false, because original BoS dont wan't anybody from outside, that's why they gave all those poeple impossible task. Situation with Vault Dweller was exception. --Languorous_Maiar 17:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much, they just sent everyone to the Glow to their deaths so they wouldn't bother them anymore. They were never actually suppose to complete the task, which is why the Vault Dweller is the exception. Shadowrunner(stuff) 21:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Italics purge?[edit source]

Why are they safe to purge?--Ant2242 (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I did it to unify formatting. I think we should reserve italics for large bodies of text (such as quotations from the game guides), but keep citations from characters in normal case. I think we need a manual of style in general. Tagaziel (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that if it is a quotation of any character it needs to be "Italicized" so it appears as the {{Quotation|}} {{iquote|}} templates. Though I don't believe these templates are needed in references unless we want to add the audio files to them. ...Do the audio files have coding to be in the templates?--Ant2242 (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. I've been adding the Italics characters when I can verify that said character says what's quoted to them. 100% accuracy is my goal.--Ant2242 (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)