76 Raiders

>The raiders are the good guys

People here also tried to say the toot are the good guys, and people here often talk about brutally murdering people like Preston, or leaving him to die in the museum. I see this a lot in other places too, like on /tg/ there is a very prolific shitposter who insists the star wars empire were actually the good guys, for example. It could be simple contrarianism warping their perceptions, and their desire to be "different" and say "well ahkshually..." to all the "plebeians" who take the author's words for things is stronger than their common sense. I like to think most or all of these are trolling, but I can see how someone with an improper socialization or moral education might be serious when they say these things.

A lot of it stems from the fact that the Crater raiders aren't as bad as other raiders. They're better than the raiders in every other game, including 4's expansions, and they're better than the other gangs we learn about in 76, and they're also better than the other active raider factions like the Blood Eagles. People who like being a raider but don't want to be a senseless moron who kills for no reason would naturally gravitate towards these "not so bad" raiders. It makes sense.

The problem is that being "not so bad" still doesn't make you good. You're not "the good guy" just because you're better than other raiders, who have traditionally been worthless parasites who are illogically and unnecessarily cruel. You're better than the absolute bottom of the barrel, congratulations.
The other problem is that they still do the primary things that make raiders evil, they just don't have the needlessly evil stuff. They still walk up to scavvers, demand all their stuff, and murder them if they say no or try to deal. They still steal food and supplies from farmers and small business owners. They are still parasites living off others, and become violent if they don't get what they want, like little 2 years olds with a tantrum.


`````````````

>But the settlers did the same thing


Nobody owned that land. It was empty with some radstags and super mutants before. The entire "they took our land" premise is faulty. That would only be the case if they actually displaced people, which they didn't. They cleared out supermutants and built their home.

The raiders don't own spruce knob before or during or after the war. It's such a nonsensical thing to say. And if one wants to make it abstract and generally to mean they "own" appalachia and thus the resources within and that anyone eating the radstags or the tatos in appalachia are poaching their land, that's equally as nonsensical for the same reason: the raiders didn't own the land before, during, or after the war. Poaching is calling upon the law to prohibit people who don't own the land from extracting resources from it, and obviously there was never a lawful claim. So it STILL makes no sense, even this third perspective of the phrase.

The raiders are just saying that as an empty justification for their behavior. Their behavior breaks natural law and no human with a functioning brain isn't aware of this, so they have to assuage some amount of the cognitive dissonance that arises from prolonged behavior that breaches natural law, so they create this narrative that the new people are poaching "their" land because they were here first. It's that simple. It's their own flimsy justification for their terrible behavior, and apparently some gamers heard them say this and accepted it as reality, without realizing it's supposed to make them look bad because it's a flimsy justification from the people perpetuating the evil acts.

```````````````````````

>the raiders don't care if it's wrong

Of course they don't care. That much is obvious. But paying something mind doesn't determine if it applies to you or affects you.
I can steal someone's tato because I don't care if it's wrong. But that has no effect on whether it is wrong.

`````````````````````````````

>making things into good vs evil is dumb

Nobody is actually saying it's that simple, this is something you have made up to conveniently strawman. The original point I was making is that the "raiders good" people are clearly wrong. The raiders are quite bad, and most of the "raiders good" rhetoric is taking their claim that it's their land at face value. Which would be foolish, for the reasons in my previous posts.

Foundation could easily do something bad. In fact I agree with you that that is somewhat likely. But as it stands at the moment, if every raider dropped dead from a heart attack, Appalachia would be improved. Is that saying every raider is evil? No, we meet several that are just normal people and we meet several children. Is that saying raiders are exclusively evil? No, we see them fighting Blood Eagles and scorched all the time, they have some practical value. Is that even saying I wish that happens? No, because anyone can seek redemption and it's never too late to change and introduce good to counteract your evil. But the points being made are that the raiders are pretty evil, most people who say they're alright are outright wrong, as they are now they are a net detriment to Appalachia, their justifications for their actions are flimsy and transparent, and they would have to drop most or all of the things that make them "raiders" for them to be considered good guys.

Talking about good guys and bad guys is not reducing the setting to just being that, it's justifying which one we sided with and explaining why, and which characteristics of each faction we feel are more important to guide us to that decision. Which one is better people on a moral scale happens to be one of the factors one might consider.


````````````````````````````````````````````

>But the raiders were there first. Squatter's law

One of the houses is also owned by one of the raiders. That would be a more reasonable claim to that particular little spot of land. If the raider who lived in that house showed up and said "this was my house, I want to live here, you can't" then that's actually somewhat reasonable. If someone did that, I wouldn't fault them. They want to live in their old prewar house and that's fine, maybe it's even sentimental which would add another layer of justification. But this is a far cry from what we're talking about, where the settlers making a fort on spruce knob is something the raiders resent. They don't actually own al of appaalchia, that's part of why their justification is flimsy.
Nobody was living at Spruce Knob. The settlers showed up, cleared the mutants, and built some log cabins. If the raiders didn't exist at all, nothing would be different. So it's not squatters law, since it was empty. The entire map of the game is not owned by the raiders, they just say that. Which is the other point I already made. No raiders were displaced by the settlers. If you actually want to lean on squatters law for your argument, then the settlers are justified. They occupied an unoccupied square of land.

`````````````````````````````````````````````

>the raiders are better at surviving

That's the issue though. The raiders are not better at surviving. They are parasites and parasites die without a host. If every settler unanimously agreed to fight to the death rather than feed the raiders, then the raiders would either adopt more farming themselves or they would die out. They're not stronger or smarter or better suited, they are parasites and parasites only thrive as much as the host.
Building a home and growing food is more difficult than waving a gun and taking someone else's. The farmer is a stronger human than the raider, he's just not suited for combat, and combat ultimately decides who gets to do what. But this is only the case because raiders are evil. The person who is better suited for combat and then makes the choice to make use of the fact that they are better suited for combat to steal form others is a bad person. So this conversation of who is better suited is intrinsically connected to the conversation of who is good and bad.
In other words, if every raider dropped dead, the settlers would prosper. But if every settler dropped dead, the raiders would either starve to death or they would adopt some of the habits of the settlers in order to survive. Ironically, they would be forced to actually grow their own food and would be closer to the settlers, if they didn't have the settlers to leech from. This great irony is another reason to dislike the raiders.


``````````````````````````````````````````````

>morals are subjective, and the raiders are just acting according to the ones they have

What the raiders do don't conflict with *their* morals. This is a true statement. But the morals a person holds can be wrong. The morals the raiders hold are not ideal morals, they are not the morals that create an ideal world. They hold bad morals.
It's quite easy for bad actions to not conflict with bad morals. In fact I would expect them not to. The real challenge is to hold good morals, and life a life that doesn't conflict with ideal morals. Ideal morals exist separate from what humans think they are, and the challenge given to every moral human is to discover ideal morals and life according to them. Some people, such as the raiders, have given up on this challenge. They accept defeat, and live a life with not-ideal morals. This is a failing.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````

>But the settlers tell you to kill people too

Ward doesn't tell you to kill anyone, and if you do, he is regretful. They had the voice actor records lines about being regretful. Not sure if you missed this or omitted it for dishonest reasons. And the only reason he asks you to do anything at all in the first place, the reason the quest exists at all, is because a raider snuck in and stole something important to the operation of the doctor's office.
They can't just let that go, or else they're left without doctor's equipment. Which is the fundamental difference and flaw with the raiders: the raider justifies his theft by saying his friend is sick and needs it. So he steals foundation's. Which means he's just transferring the issue to someone else. His friend is cured, but the next sick person at Foundation just dies instead of his friend. This lifestyle and this perspective is at the core of why the raiders are bad. It's not a solution, it's just transferring the issue.
The real solution would be to parlay with Foundation for use of it, or more likely to just visit the Foundation doctor. We don't actually have reason to believe the Settlers would say no, since the settler lines about the raiders are mostly resentful of them stealing from them. If that stopped then.....whoa, Foundations problem with the raiders would also stop. It's almost like the entire conflict is actually started by the raiders.
Foundation grows food, builds cabins, and has good doctors. The raiders are fighters. They could just work together. Raiders patrol appalachia and destroy monsters, and Foundation hauls over buckets of food to them. Easy peasy, problem solved. But the raiders don't want to do honest work, so they chimp out and steal the food and kill people. It makes no sense, and the only reason the raiders don't just become legitimate mercenaries paid in food is because they have an attitude problem. Another reason to dislike the raiders.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

>But Ward knows what he's really telling you to do. Foundation isn't any better

Ward is aware that things will probably end in violence. That part of what you say is true. However, that doesn't mean he doesn't truly wish otherwise. And it ending in violence is the fault of the raider. You can ask for it back, and he says no and turns hostile. The raider either leaves with it, pays you to keep quiet about it, or tries to kill you. He does not accept giving it back. So it's the raider's fault it turns violent. Not Ward's and not the Dweller's.
And Foundation is better.
"This is my land and you can't have any of it" is not any better or worse than "We're settling here whether you like it or not". they're both not ideal ways to interact with your neighbors and they're both unreasonable positions. So far, they both suck.
However, there is a difference between the two factions after that. The Settlers build homes, grow food, and work towards building a better future. They are interested in long term growth and prosperity of future generations. The Raiders are leeches and their lifestyle is only possible because of the presence of the Settlers (no matter how much they may say they don't like that they're there, they would die or have to change without them).
So I'll side with the sorta assholes who care about their environment and their future generations and actually build towards a better future, over the overt assholes who steal and murder as a matter of course and bring destruction to those who try to improve things and who's very existence is a contradiction to what they claim.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````