What Developers Can Learn From a Dead Goat

[Specter_]

To what degree X-Com is "attaching" probably depends a lot on the player (for example, if you - like me - always renamed your squads after your friends and family you probably felt even more attached to them) but it was definitely very immersive, so I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.

Ahhh, how I loved X-Com. I was so immersed at the time my very best man died I actually cried out "NO! ANATOLII!"

I was never immersed in a way that made me sweat when I was facing overwhelming odds or when my guys detected a strong foe (think of those runners in Apocalypse: as soon as you saw one, some of your guys were going to die).
But I somehow, on a professional level, attached to my men. I'd rather sacrifice 3 rookies I just got this mission to save one of my veterans and I readily sent PSI-guys and robots to their death while for my humans I considered safety. It was a matter of how usefull they were to me as commander-in-chief.

But even with this distance between me and my men, X-Com did a far better job of immersing/attaching/whatevering the player to the men than anything I've played in the last... 10 years or so.

Operation Flashpoint is (was) a very immersive game. When, in the vanilla-campaign, I was sneaking through a forrest and outside I heard something, I started to tremble because I feared I had been detected ingame. Yet I didn't give a fuck about anyone in that game. I even let my fellow soldiers charge into certain death "'cause I want their weapon" or "'cause I need ammo"...

 

[Retodon8]

Wow.
I didn't even know you could kill the goat in KQ [http://sarien.net/kingsquest].
I do wish modren games would have goats to (not) kill in them.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Sierra does it again.

Of course, game producers could also go with the other morality system in their game- be nice or get die a terrible, brutal death.

That's not the Sierra morality system.

The Sierra morality system was "Be nice or die a terrible brutal death, but not too nice or you die a terrible brutal death a hundred screens later, long after you've overwritten your save".

 

[Erana]

Sierra does it again.

Of course, game producers could also go with the other morality system in their game- be nice or get die a terrible, brutal death.

That's not the Sierra morality system.

The Sierra morality system was "Be nice or die a terrible brutal death, but not too nice or you die a terrible brutal death a hundred screens later, long after you've overwritten your save".

That must have been what happened to Erana in QFG...

 

[Andy_Panthro]

That must have been what happened to Erana in QFG...

That was more martyrdom, in saving the world from unspeakable evil.

QfG didn't have much of a morality system unless you went all goody-goody Paladin. I usually went for mostly good Magic User/Wizard.

There are dozens of games that developers these days could learn from. Instead we get the same repeated sequels...

Mind you, people do keep on buying. If you buy it, they will make more of the same.

That's why I wander off to play retro PC games and indie games.

 

[Clashero]

To what degree X-Com is "attaching" probably depends a lot on the player (for example, if you - like me - always renamed your squads after your friends and family you probably felt even more attached to them) but it was definitely very immersive, so I don't know what you could possibly mean by that.

Ahhh, how I loved X-Com. I was so immersed at the time my very best man died I actually cried out "NO! ANATOLII!"

I was never immersed in a way that made me sweat when I was facing overwhelming odds or when my guys detected a strong foe (think of those runners in Apocalypse: as soon as you saw one, some of your guys were going to die).
But I somehow, on a professional level, attached to my men. I'd rather sacrifice 3 rookies I just got this mission to save one of my veterans and I readily sent PSI-guys and robots to their death while for my humans I considered safety. It was a matter of how usefull they were to me as commander-in-chief.

But even with this distance between me and my men, X-Com did a far better job of immersing/attaching/whatevering the player to the men than anything I've played in the last... 10 years or so.

Operation Flashpoint is (was) a very immersive game. When, in the vanilla-campaign, I was sneaking through a forrest and outside I heard something, I started to tremble because I feared I had been detected ingame. Yet I didn't give a fuck about anyone in that game. I even let my fellow soldiers charge into certain death "'cause I want their weapon" or "'cause I need ammo"...

Ah, I have been totally ignoring OF, to the point I don't even know what it's about. I shall have to give it a try. Thanks for the unaware recommendation.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Spoiler: My view on the Tennpenny-issue

That was actually an easy one:
Ghouls attack you or are not very friendly. This may stem from them being discriminated, but as you explained, one of the groups has to die anyway. And since the peacefull solution ends in ghoul-induced bloodshed, I sided with Tenpenny and dispatched of the ghouls. On my second playthrough I ignored the issue completely.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

Spoiler: More Fallout 3 Spoilers, who'd have thunk it

Yes, if you try to be diplomatic about the situation, then the ghouls end-up killing the residents of Tenpenny anyway. The problem though is that it's actually just one ghoul who does the murdering. The other two, for the most part, are completely innocent. I can agree to killing the one ghoul, but it's those other two I wish I could spare.

 

[Specter_]

Spoiler: My view on the Tennpenny-issue

That was actually an easy one:
Ghouls attack you or are not very friendly. This may stem from them being discriminated, but as you explained, one of the groups has to die anyway. And since the peacefull solution ends in ghoul-induced bloodshed, I sided with Tenpenny and dispatched of the ghouls. On my second playthrough I ignored the issue completely.

I don't think it's quite that simple.

Spoiler: More Fallout 3 Spoilers, who'd have thunk it

Yes, if you try to be diplomatic about the situation, then the ghouls end-up killing the residents of Tenpenny anyway. The problem though is that it's actually just one ghoul who does the murdering. The other two, for the most part, are completely innocent. I can agree to killing the one ghoul, but it's those other two I wish I could spare.

Spoiler: Here we go again

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim of "one culprit"? Because as far as I'm concerned you let them in, leave for a couple of days and when you come, back every human being is dead.

Anyway, for me it's a simplified current-world political issue which I already have a set mind on:
One party wants to move into a place they don't own while the other party simply wants to be left alone.
The ghouls call for violence, while Tenpenny simply refuses entrance. That Gustavo, who represents the military of TT, calls for violence as well, should be no surprise if you see it as a parallel to inter-country relationships IRL. But, unlike real life, the ghouls have no claim on residence in Tenpenny Tower, other than "it's nicer than the sewer we currently live in".

So you have two factions, one with a violent leader and one with a violent military and an indifferent, but intolerant leader. Both are not ideal, but Tenpenny himself is the lesser evil.
While in the real world I side with the displaced violent people fighting the other violent faction, in Fallout3 I must side with those who want to live in peace and maintain what they have, even if this means discriminating others.
In case there can be no non-violent diplomatic solution (as is in Fallout3, due to gameplay-restriction), one side has to suck it up or both sides have to fight each other until nothing is left.

Thanks for the unaware recommendation.

You're welcome.

 

[Eric the Orange]

Spoiler: Here we go again

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim of "one culprit"? Because as far as I'm concerned you let them in, leave for a couple of days and when you come, back every human being is dead.

Anyway, for me it's a simplified current-world political issue which I already have a set mind on:
One party wants to move into a place they don't own while the other party simply wants to be left alone.
The ghouls call for violence, while Tenpenny simply refuses entrance. That Gustavo, who represents the military of TT, calls for violence as well, should be no surprise if you see it as a parallel to inter-country relationships IRL. But, unlike real life, the ghouls have no claim on residence in Tenpenny Tower, other than "it's nicer than the sewer we currently live in".

So you have two factions, one with a violent leader and one with a violent military and an indifferent, but intolerant leader. Both are not ideal, but Tenpenny himself is the lesser evil.
While in the real world I side with the displaced violent people fighting the other violent faction, in Fallout3 I must side with those who want to live in peace and maintain what they have, even if this means discriminating others.
In case there can be no non-violent diplomatic solution (as is in Fallout3, due to gameplay-restriction), one side has to suck it up or both sides have to fight each other until nothing is left.

Spoiler: a rebuttal

I'm not particularly versed on the topic so feel free to correct me here, but isn't Tenpenny the guy who wants to blow up the place people are using for shelter just because it doesn't look nice from the view on the top of his tower. This issue may be unrelated to that one, but it doesn't really paint him as a "good" person. So I don't think his reasoning is, "If we let those people in here they will kill us" but rather "They're ugly, and I don't want to see em'". And he doesn't have to see them from the top of his tower so "out of sight, out of mind". That being said if he was in a situation where he did see them every day he wouldn't hesitate to kill them (megaton *ahem*). I'm not saying the the ghouls "deserve" to live there any more than anyone else, but rather that a man with power should use it to help people, maybe not those specific people but still. Tenpenny only uses it to help himself. And yeah the resulting killing of the the other residents is wrong, but you have no way of knowing he is going to do that until it's done. So as far as you can tell from the pre-situation convincing Tenpenny to use his power to help those less fortunate would be "good". At least thats my logic.

 

[Specter_]

Spoiler: Here we go again

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim of "one culprit"? Because as far as I'm concerned you let them in, leave for a couple of days and when you come, back every human being is dead.

Anyway, for me it's a simplified current-world political issue which I already have a set mind on:
One party wants to move into a place they don't own while the other party simply wants to be left alone.
The ghouls call for violence, while Tenpenny simply refuses entrance. That Gustavo, who represents the military of TT, calls for violence as well, should be no surprise if you see it as a parallel to inter-country relationships IRL. But, unlike real life, the ghouls have no claim on residence in Tenpenny Tower, other than "it's nicer than the sewer we currently live in".

So you have two factions, one with a violent leader and one with a violent military and an indifferent, but intolerant leader. Both are not ideal, but Tenpenny himself is the lesser evil.
While in the real world I side with the displaced violent people fighting the other violent faction, in Fallout3 I must side with those who want to live in peace and maintain what they have, even if this means discriminating others.
In case there can be no non-violent diplomatic solution (as is in Fallout3, due to gameplay-restriction), one side has to suck it up or both sides have to fight each other until nothing is left.

Spoiler: a rebuttal

I'm not particularly versed on the topic so feel free to correct me here, but isn't Tenpenny the guy who wants to blow up the place people are using for shelter just because it doesn't look nice from the view on the top of his tower. This issue may be unrelated to that one, but it doesn't really paint him as a "good" person. So I don't think his reasoning is, "If we let those people in here they will kill us" but rather "They're ugly, and I don't want to see em'". And he doesn't have to see them from the top of his tower so "out of sight, out of mind". That being said if he was in a situation where he did see them every day he wouldn't hesitate to kill them (megaton *ahem*). I'm not saying the the ghouls "deserve" to live there any more than anyone else, but rather that a man with power should use it to help people, maybe not those specific people but still. Tenpenny only uses it to help himself. And yeah the resulting killing of the the other residents is wrong, but you have no way of knowing he is going to do that until it's done. So as far as you can tell from the pre-situation convincing Tenpenny to use his power to help those less fortunate would be "good". At least thats my logic.

Spoiler: Same old, same old

Yes, Tenpenny wants to blow up Megaton, or to be more precise, he wants to detonate the nuclear bomb Megaton is built around.
As far as I understand it, he simply wants to watch the show. Plus, during conversation it becomes clear that Burke has assured Tenpenny that no residents are in the area at the time of explosion. So while it is a bit overkill to blow up a town, Tenpenny himself does not want to harm Megatons citizens, it's Burke who wants to clear "this stain".
I'm not saying that Tennpenny is a saint, he is indeed a very selfish person. But at the end of the day, he is the one you can negoiate with to let the ghouls in at all.

You have Gustavo, who wants to kill the ghouls.
You have Roy Phillips, who wants to kill the residents.
And then you have Allistar, who wants to be left alone, but is easily convinced to let the ghouls in.

From these three person, Allistar is the most diplomatic one. And after all, it was him who rebuild the tower.

Even tho the game wants you to consider Allistair "evil" (you gain good karma in case you kill him) he is, in my opinion better than... Moriarty (and you gain negative karma for killing him, even while he IS a crime-boss and slaver).

Now to your logical conclusion that the diplomatic solution is the "good" path:
I kind of agree. In a perfect world it would be the correct way to deal with the problem. But even more than our real world, the world in Fallout3 is far from perfect and the tensions between ghouls and humans can be seen everywhere (not considering the previous Fallout titles):
during my travels I was attacked by ghoulified wanderers for no apparent reason
Moriarty has a ghoul slave
Underworld. Considering the obviously longstanding discrimination of humans towards ghouls, one has to consider the possibility that there could be a reason for it.
And last but not least: feral ghouls.

Nobody, probably not even the ghouls themselves, knows why some became sentient and some (most of them) feral. So it is quite possible that sentient ghouls turn feral at some point or another. And without being a ghoul myself I'd rather not be around when that happens.

So you have two parallel societies, which, from time to time, clash against each other. It has worked for the last 200 years for one reason or another, so who are you to jeopardize the lifes of humans AND ghouls (as you said, you don't know what's going to happen after it happend) on a, probably flawed, moral basis? Remember: you grew up in a sheltered society without any influence whatsoever from ghouls. Gob should be the first non-human sentient being you encounter.

From the evidence collected before considering the "correct" solution, it strongly points towards ghouls being more violent, less diplomatic and generally more dangerous than any human you encounter, including raiders.

I hope this makes at least some kind of sense, I just fucked up an exam, so I might be a bit off

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

I don't think it's quite that simple.

Spoiler: More Fallout 3 Spoilers, who'd have thunk it

Yes, if you try to be diplomatic about the situation, then the ghouls end-up killing the residents of Tenpenny anyway. The problem though is that it's actually just one ghoul who does the murdering. The other two, for the most part, are completely innocent. I can agree to killing the one ghoul, but it's those other two I wish I could spare.

Spoiler: Here we go again

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim of "one culprit"? Because as far as I'm concerned you let them in, leave for a couple of days and when you come, back every human being is dead.

Anyway, for me it's a simplified current-world political issue which I already have a set mind on:
One party wants to move into a place they don't own while the other party simply wants to be left alone.
The ghouls call for violence, while Tenpenny simply refuses entrance. That Gustavo, who represents the military of TT, calls for violence as well, should be no surprise if you see it as a parallel to inter-country relationships IRL. But, unlike real life, the ghouls have no claim on residence in Tenpenny Tower, other than "it's nicer than the sewer we currently live in".

So you have two factions, one with a violent leader and one with a violent military and an indifferent, but intolerant leader. Both are not ideal, but Tenpenny himself is the lesser evil.
While in the real world I side with the displaced violent people fighting the other violent faction, in Fallout3 I must side with those who want to live in peace and maintain what they have, even if this means discriminating others.
In case there can be no non-violent diplomatic solution (as is in Fallout3, due to gameplay-restriction), one side has to suck it up or both sides have to fight each other until nothing is left.

Spoiler: Zomg spoilers quoting spoilers

To respond to your first point, I know that the other two had nothing to do with it because I talked to them. Granted they could be lying, but this isn't a court-based game, so I doubt that much thought was put into their reactions when you confront them about the dead residents. In the case of the female, she takes the denial route in claiming that "they must have done something to deserve it then". As for the other guy, he doesn't really care. Neither really "good" views to take on the situation, but given that they don't have anywhere else to go, it isn't like they're going to turn on the guy who's basically their protection.

As for the second part, I do agree that with some thought on the matter, it is pretty clear that you shouldn't help the ghouls. However, you have to look at it from a "first play-through" perspective. Here you have some ghouls that just want to live in the tower, AND have the caps to pay for their room (or rooms). The instant you get invited into the tower, the leader of their security almost instantly proposes that you go and kill them. So you're looking at this situation for the first time without knowing how it ends, and your first thought is "maybe I should help the ghouls get in here peacefully".

It's part of why I like the quest. You go through the motions thinking that you're doing the right thing the whole time through (you even get positive karma when you're done), then the next thing you know you're listening to GNR and Three Dog is telling you that the residents were completely wiped-out, so you go back to investigate and find the basement room with a feral ghoul and the dead bodies of all the residents of the tower, and the ghoul who did it even gloats about it.

 

[Specter_]

Spoiler: Zomg spoilers quoting spoilers

To respond to your first point, I know that the other two had nothing to do with it because I talked to them. Granted they could be lying, but this isn't a court-based game, so I doubt that much thought was put into their reactions when you confront them about the dead residents. In the case of the female, she takes the denial route in claiming that "they must have done something to deserve it then". As for the other guy, he doesn't really care. Neither really "good" views to take on the situation, but given that they don't have anywhere else to go, it isn't like they're going to turn on the guy who's basically their protection.

As for the second part, I do agree that with some thought on the matter, it is pretty clear that you shouldn't help the ghouls. However, you have to look at it from a "first play-through" perspective. Here you have some ghouls that just want to live in the tower, AND have the caps to pay for their room (or rooms). The instant you get invited into the tower, the leader of their security almost instantly proposes that you go and kill them. So you're looking at this situation for the first time without knowing how it ends, and your first thought is "maybe I should help the ghouls get in here peacefully".

It's part of why I like the quest. You go through the motions thinking that you're doing the right thing the whole time through (you even get positive karma when you're done), then the next thing you know you're listening to GNR and Three Dog is telling you that the residents were completely wiped-out, so you go back to investigate and find the basement room with a feral ghoul and the dead bodies of all the residents of the tower, and the ghoul who did it even gloats about it.

I'd like to refer you to this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.126364.2673830]. Maybe it helps to clear things up a bit.
If you want, I can answer your post seperatly, but since you and Eric share the same sentiment, I think I can pack you two together

 

[Eric the Orange]

Spoiler: Here we go again

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim of "one culprit"? Because as far as I'm concerned you let them in, leave for a couple of days and when you come, back every human being is dead.

Anyway, for me it's a simplified current-world political issue which I already have a set mind on:
One party wants to move into a place they don't own while the other party simply wants to be left alone.
The ghouls call for violence, while Tenpenny simply refuses entrance. That Gustavo, who represents the military of TT, calls for violence as well, should be no surprise if you see it as a parallel to inter-country relationships IRL. But, unlike real life, the ghouls have no claim on residence in Tenpenny Tower, other than "it's nicer than the sewer we currently live in".

So you have two factions, one with a violent leader and one with a violent military and an indifferent, but intolerant leader. Both are not ideal, but Tenpenny himself is the lesser evil.
While in the real world I side with the displaced violent people fighting the other violent faction, in Fallout3 I must side with those who want to live in peace and maintain what they have, even if this means discriminating others.
In case there can be no non-violent diplomatic solution (as is in Fallout3, due to gameplay-restriction), one side has to suck it up or both sides have to fight each other until nothing is left.

Spoiler: a rebuttal

I'm not particularly versed on the topic so feel free to correct me here, but isn't Tenpenny the guy who wants to blow up the place people are using for shelter just because it doesn't look nice from the view on the top of his tower. This issue may be unrelated to that one, but it doesn't really paint him as a "good" person. So I don't think his reasoning is, "If we let those people in here they will kill us" but rather "They're ugly, and I don't want to see em'". And he doesn't have to see them from the top of his tower so "out of sight, out of mind". That being said if he was in a situation where he did see them every day he wouldn't hesitate to kill them (megaton *ahem*). I'm not saying the the ghouls "deserve" to live there any more than anyone else, but rather that a man with power should use it to help people, maybe not those specific people but still. Tenpenny only uses it to help himself. And yeah the resulting killing of the the other residents is wrong, but you have no way of knowing he is going to do that until it's done. So as far as you can tell from the pre-situation convincing Tenpenny to use his power to help those less fortunate would be "good". At least thats my logic.

Spoiler: Same old, same old

Yes, Tenpenny wants to blow up Megaton, or to be more precise, he wants to detonate the nuclear bomb Megaton is built around.
As far as I understand it, he simply wants to watch the show. Plus, during conversation it becomes clear that Burke has assured Tenpenny that no residents are in the area at the time of explosion. So while it is a bit overkill to blow up a town, Tenpenny himself does not want to harm Megatons citizens, it's Burke who wants to clear "this stain".
I'm not saying that Tennpenny is a saint, he is indeed a very selfish person. But at the end of the day, he is the one you can negoiate with to let the ghouls in at all.

You have Gustavo, who wants to kill the ghouls.
You have Roy Phillips, who wants to kill the residents.
And then you have Allistar, who wants to be left alone, but is easily convinced to let the ghouls in.

From these three person, Allistar is the most diplomatic one. And after all, it was him who rebuild the tower.

Even tho the game wants you to consider Allistair "evil" (you gain good karma in case you kill him) he is, in my opinion better than... Moriarty (and you gain negative karma for killing him, even while he IS a crime-boss and slaver).

Now to your logical conclusion that the diplomatic solution is the "good" path:
I kind of agree. In a perfect world it would be the correct way to deal with the problem. But even more than our real world, the world in Fallout3 is far from perfect and the tensions between ghouls and humans can be seen everywhere (not considering the previous Fallout titles):
during my travels I was attacked by ghoulified wanderers for no apparent reason
Moriarty has a ghoul slave
Underworld. Considering the obviously longstanding discrimination of humans towards ghouls, one has to consider the possibility that there could be a reason for it.
And last but not least: feral ghouls.

Nobody, probably not even the ghouls themselves, knows why some became sentient and some (most of them) feral. So it is quite possible that sentient ghouls turn feral at some point or another. And without being a ghoul myself I'd rather not be around when that happens.

So you have two parallel societies, which, from time to time, clash against each other. It has worked for the last 200 years for one reason or another, so who are you to jeopardize the lifes of humans AND ghouls (as you said, you don't know what's going to happen after it happend) on a, probably flawed, moral basis? Remember: you grew up in a sheltered society without any influence whatsoever from ghouls. Gob should be the first non-human sentient being you encounter.

From the evidence collected before considering the "correct" solution, it strongly points towards ghouls being more violent, less diplomatic and generally more dangerous than any human you encounter, including raiders.

I hope this makes at least some kind of sense, I just fucked up an exam, so I might be a bit off

Spoiler: concessions

OK, yeah you can make the argument that Tenpenny is the lazy monarch and Burke is the evil behind the throne using his powers. I don't really feel that way but for the sake of argument lets say it is. So then all he's guilty of is selfishness.

Of coarse he could be entirely correct in his choices. Perhaps he has some hitherto unknown knowledge that lets him know how the situation will eventually turn out if he lets the ghouls live there. Maybe all ghouls turn feral in a matter of time so killing them is the equivalent to putting down a dog with rabies.

But there is no real way to know these things for sure unless Bethesda decides to give us some "word of god" on the issue.

That being said the basic idea of those with power helping those without is a concept that I feel is "good". But prehaps not in this situation.

 

[Lyri]

Spoiler: Susan stuffz ^^

What Developers Can Learn From a Dead Goat

Developers looking to affect players on a deep, emotional level could learn a lot from the goat in King's Quest.

You have two choices when you first encounter the goat, explains Brendan Main in an article in this week's issue of The Escapist: You can entice it to join you by feeding it a carrot, or you can kill it. Though he always vowed to change his ways, Main killed the poor goat each and every time, an act that still bothers him to this day.

It's that lingering guilt that drives Sears to hold up the goat as a symbol of videogame morality:

That goat is set apart from all the faceless enemies I've encountered in countless other games. It does not belong with the scores of passers-by I've mown down, or the hundreds of zombies I've ripped through. It is a symbol of guilt - a moment when I was given a chance to be patient and humane, but settled for the cheap thrill instead.

Given that no game developer seems to have quite gotten a real handle on weaving moral choices into gameplay just yet, perhaps it would be worth their while to revisit King's Quest to see if Sears has a point.

Be sure to check out Issue 211 for the full article, "Kill Billy." [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_211/6281-Kill-Billy]

Permalink

This could be an interesting article, I'm going to read it right now.
I may be alone in thinking this but Moral choice systems are purely down to how the player sees things, Mr. Sears seems to have been affected by this goats death but to someone else it may not bother them.

It's interesting that it's a goat too, It could have been something similar to the original Fable's ending instead. Something far more grande and twisted than a simple farm yard animal in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Anyway, going to glance over it now, seems like it will pose some good questions.

Edit: Read it, It was an engaging read.

 

[Specter_]

Spoiler: Zomg spoilers quoting spoilers

To respond to your first point, I know that the other two had nothing to do with it because I talked to them. Granted they could be lying, but this isn't a court-based game, so I doubt that much thought was put into their reactions when you confront them about the dead residents. In the case of the female, she takes the denial route in claiming that "they must have done something to deserve it then". As for the other guy, he doesn't really care. Neither really "good" views to take on the situation, but given that they don't have anywhere else to go, it isn't like they're going to turn on the guy who's basically their protection.

As for the second part, I do agree that with some thought on the matter, it is pretty clear that you shouldn't help the ghouls. However, you have to look at it from a "first play-through" perspective. Here you have some ghouls that just want to live in the tower, AND have the caps to pay for their room (or rooms). The instant you get invited into the tower, the leader of their security almost instantly proposes that you go and kill them. So you're looking at this situation for the first time without knowing how it ends, and your first thought is "maybe I should help the ghouls get in here peacefully".

It's part of why I like the quest. You go through the motions thinking that you're doing the right thing the whole time through (you even get positive karma when you're done), then the next thing you know you're listening to GNR and Three Dog is telling you that the residents were completely wiped-out, so you go back to investigate and find the basement room with a feral ghoul and the dead bodies of all the residents of the tower, and the ghoul who did it even gloats about it.

So I'll answer you as well:

Spoiler: White

But they do have somewhere else to go:
- Underworld
- the place they live in before TenpennyTower
- Tenpenny Tower before Allistair took it over.

Allistair is a selfish prick BUT at the end of the day, it's his "apartmentblock" and it's him who can decide who to rent to and who stays outside. Roy Phillips threatens the residents with violence before you even step through the main gate. Only after that Gustavo asks you to take care of their problem. It's violence vs. violence and only the player comes up with the plan to end it "peacefully" (as far as I remember, anyway).

So either you join one side or you enforce your moral point of view on them. This is a no-win situation. And in situations like this it is my moral conviction that you simply preserve the status quo.

Spoiler: concessions

OK, yeah you can make the argument that Tenpenny is the lazy monarch and Burke is the evil behind the throne using his powers. I don't really feel that way but for the sake of argument lets say it is. So then all he's guilty of is selfishness.

Of coarse he could be entirely correct in his choices. Perhaps he has some hitherto unknown knowledge that lets him know how the situation will eventually turn out if he lets the ghouls live there. Maybe all ghouls turn feral in a matter of time so killing them is the equivalent to putting down a dog with rabies.

But there is no real way to know these things for sure unless Bethesda decides to give us some "word of god" on the issue.

That being said the basic idea of those with power helping those without is a concept that I feel is "good". But prehaps not in this situation.

Spoiler: Eric

Please read the 2nd paragraph in the "White"-spoiler.

As to the concept of "rich helping poor":
Again, this is nice in a perfect world. But in a world devastated by nuclear war, with not enough even for those with currency, yourself and those you hold dear are the most important people in your life.
Of course, a lot of people will help other unrelated people, but usually AFTER their dear-ones are taken care of. It's an elaborate version of survival of the fittest. You help yourself to survive, then you help those you want to survive and anything after that is up to yourself.
Allistair choose to make the best of the situation for him and in a situation like Fallout3, I can't really blame him.
In todays world, he would be called a supremacist and businessman. He wants to make money and doesn't like a certain kind of "people". 50 years ago, this was normal in most western societies. Today it is frowned upon. 200 years after a nuclear war it's normal again (and understandably so). Circle of life and history.

 

[Brendan Main]

So i geuss that really GOT HIS GOAT, huh?

See... see what i did there?

Well, it's also the goat's fault for hanging around the wrong element. I guess he thought "If you can't bleat 'em, join 'em."

We always butted heads, but I feel for the poor guy. One day he's eating cans, the next he's eating dirt.

I guess you could call this a classic tale of "shiv meets chevre."

I'm writing the goat's biography now. It's going to be titled "Of Mutton and Men."


(All right. I kid.)