Ranger origin story

[CaptainPatch]

CaptainPatch, I have seen you be very reasonable in other threads, and I think you are a smart person, but your entire purpose in this thread seems to be demanding ultra-realism from a game that has only a thin veneer of realism in the first place.

The thing is, it wouldn't take all that much exposition to actually make the foundation premise entirely plausible. WL2 is the perfect opportunity to make the few necessary tweaks to make the story MUCH more plausible and consistent.

BTW, there was NO "cult based around worshiping VISA cards". One man, the Head Crusher, had a use for them: Paragraph 86 --

"The Head Crusher likes visa (sic) cards." The man smiles. "He slathers peanutbuter (sic) on them and eats them." He shakes his head. "Weird, but then, most everything is weird out here -- present company excepted, of course."

[Ninja Errant]

The biggest thing I'm seeing here that nobody else has mentioned is space. How big is this prison? A company can, according to Wiki, run from 80-225 men. They may have simply evicted the prisoners because they didn't have enough room to squeeze all their men in with the prisoners still there, and as noted earlier, killing them without wasting ammo would A. Take a long time, B. leave a lot of corpses to fester, and C. probably result in a riot. Also, just because they are an Engineers company doesn't mean they actually have easy access to all that heavy equipment it would take to be able to easily dispose of the bodies.

What I'm seeing, is this company, out on maneuvers in the desert, sees the mushroom clouds going up, and says "shit we need to get some sort of cover fast" (yeah, a prison won't help much, if at all, but at least it would feel like its better than nothing.) Anyway, so they get to this prison, with ominous plumes still visible on the horizon, and find out that it's jammed full to bursting with all these scum of the earth types. Now if they're just out doing practice maneuvers, they probably only have a couple of clips each if they're lucky, not to mention food supplies for only a week or two. (I'm guessing on those numbers), They just wanna get inside, and the convicts seem eager to leave, so why not let them? The fallout'll get them anyway. Besides, the officers have to keep the morale of the men in mind, and as somebody mentioned, butchering unarmed civilians, even convicts, isn't exactly spirit building.

Also, while I don't want to be one of those "it doesn't have to be realistic" posters, it is probably worth noting that the intended tone of W1, from what I'm getting here, I didn't play it so take this with a grain of salt, is taken from pulp fiction, movies, comics and whatnot, rather than from actual accurate sources.

Also, it leads into a system of choices with consequences very nicely. This is one of those case where all of the options suck. Yeah, the CO would probably be facing court-martial later, but it might be the least of his problems at that moment.

[CaptainPatch]

What I'm seeing, is this company, out on maneuvers in the desert,

According to the history background in the manual:

...a company of U.S. Army Engineers were in the southwestern deserts building transportation bridges over dry riverbeds.

That indicates that they were NOT just on maneuvers, that they would have all the required equipment to build bridges, and that they had adequate rations and building materials to complete the tasks. That is, if they were supposed to be a self-sufficient command. It may be that they would have had regular Supply deliveries for rations and building materials. Being that they were working out in the desert and moving from site to site, they probably had one or more Supply dumps positioned near where they were working. In which case, they may have had several months of rations and a s***load of steel girders, sheet metal, guard rails, rivets, spare parts for equipment, etc. at their disposal.

Anyway, so they get to this prison, with ominous plumes still visible on the horizon, and find out that it's jammed full to bursting with all these scum of the earth types.

If the prisoners are still in place, you have to account for the whereabouts of the Warden and the guards. If they are _still_ at the prison, then the Army CO would most definitely be informed as to just what kind of prisoners were present. (Death Row inmates.) In which case, the Army CO would have had a fight on his hands when he even suggested releasing the prisoners under any circumstances. If the Warden and guards had _already_ abandoned the prison to run home to their families, then when the Engineers and see the prisoners abandoned and locked into their cells to die a slow death from starvation, then to the CO it would have looked like the humane thing to do would be to let the prisoners out of their cells and maybe even unilaterally give them commuted sentences under his Martial Law authority. Later, he learns that all those prisoners he just let go were condemned to death for their crimes. ....Oops. Act in haste; repent at leisure.

[paultakeda]

the Engineers, seeking shelter, took over the federal prison and expelled the prisoners into the desolate desert to complete their sentences.

Sounds like they showed up and kicked them out to serve out their term outside the gates, now that being locked inside a prison was now a "good thing".

[Ninja Errant]

What I'm seeing, is this company, out on maneuvers in the desert,

According to the history background in the manual:

...a company of U.S. Army Engineers were in the southwestern deserts building transportation bridges over dry riverbeds.

That indicates that they were NOT just on maneuvers, that they would have all the required equipment to build bridges, and that they had adequate rations and building materials to complete the tasks. That is, if they were supposed to be a self-sufficient command. It may be that they would have had regular Supply deliveries for rations and building materials. Being that they were working out in the desert and moving from site to site, they probably had one or more Supply dumps positioned near where they were working. In which case, they may have had several months of rations and a s***load of steel girders, sheet metal, guard rails, rivets, spare parts for equipment, etc. at their disposal.

My bad, should have read that more carefully. Aside from increased potential for mass graves though, doesn't change my point all that much.

Anyway, so they get to this prison, with ominous plumes still visible on the horizon, and find out that it's jammed full to bursting with all these scum of the earth types.

If the prisoners are still in place, you have to account for the whereabouts of the Warden and the guards. If they are _still_ at the prison, then the Army CO would most definitely be informed as to just what kind of prisoners were present. (Death Row inmates.) In which case, the Army CO would have had a fight on his hands when he even suggested releasing the prisoners under any circumstances. If the Warden and guards had _already_ abandoned the prison to run home to their families, then when the Engineers and see the prisoners abandoned and locked into their cells to die a slow death from starvation, then to the CO it would have looked like the humane thing to do would be to let the prisoners out of their cells and maybe even unilaterally give them commuted sentences under his Martial Law authority. Later, he learns that all those prisoners he just let go were condemned to death for their crimes. ....Oops. Act in haste; repent at leisure.

That second scenario sounds pretty workable to me. Don't know whether that's what the original writer had in mind (I'm perfectly willing to accept that the writers just screwed up, not knowing that much about the actual regulations involved), but it seems plausible within the given framework of what they did say.

[clippedwolf]

It never says in the manual that all the prisoners were released. It leaves open the possibility that there might have been a series of summary executions for those already condemned to death.
The prisoners might not all released at once, that would give them the opportunity to riot, but a controlled release a few at a time over a period of time. Or they might have been cattled out the door with rifles trained on them the whole way. As expected, the majority would probably died from exposure on release anyway.

The rangers forgetting their USA engineer roots? Unlikely. Seriously. An organization that prides itself on tradition who's leader's training includes memorization of creeds, codes, and songs? Not going to happen. Even if you recruited from the local people all that damned memorization would not go away.
If the rangers do not sing the engineer song with at least five of the verses I will be very sad.
"We are, we are, we are, we are,
we are the engineers
We can, we can, we can, we can
Demolish forty beers.
Drink up, drink up, drink up, drink up
And come along with us
'Cause we don't give a damn about any old man
who doesn't give a damn about us!"

[CaptainPatch]

It never says in the manual that all the prisoners were released. It leaves open the possibility that there might have been a series of summary executions for those already condemned to death.

the Engineers, seeking shelter, took over the federal prison and expelled the prisoners into the desolate desert to complete their sentences.

"...and expelled the prisoners..." reads as being rather all-inclusive. No hint whatsoever that there were any exclusions or exceptions. Had there been any, the passage would have included "some of" or "most of".

[malthaussen]

I know I'm gravedigging, but I never liked the Origin story myself, for much the same reasons as Captain Patch has given. Even in fiction, events should be plausible, and while all sorts of panic may have/would have been experienced by the Engineer company when they saw the bright white glow, the events as described seem to me to push the envelope of plausibility.

I can, however, suggest a quick, two-word fix to the Origins story that actually addresses all the objections. Simply start it with "Legend says." Now the Origin story is no longer fact, but hearsay.

As for the shift from US Corps of Engineers to Rangers -- my feeling on that was that there must have been an interesting story behind it, but the developers chose not to give it. In point of fact, it is possible that the company still does exist, and that the "Rangers" are an entirely different civil organization that developed out of the community that was preserved by the Engineer action, and is not directly associated with the Engineers at all.

-- Mal

[paultakeda]

I know I'm gravedigging, but I never liked the Origin story myself, for much the same reasons as Captain Patch has given. Even in fiction, events should be plausible, and while all sorts of panic may have/would have been experienced by the Engineer company when they saw the bright white glow, the events as described seem to me to push the envelope of plausibility.

I can, however, suggest a quick, two-word fix to the Origins story that actually addresses all the objections. Simply start it with "Legend says." Now the Origin story is no longer fact, but hearsay.

As for the shift from US Corps of Engineers to Rangers -- my feeling on that was that there must have been an interesting story behind it, but the developers chose not to give it. In point of fact, it is possible that the company still does exist, and that the "Rangers" are an entirely different civil organization that developed out of the community that was preserved by the Engineer action, and is not directly associated with the Engineers at all.

-- Mal

What is implausible? You begin with this claim but do not cite the implausibilities.

Inmates are unarmed. Army engineers can expel them rather easily and keep them expelled particularly when the survivalist communities join them at the penitentiary... survivalist communities who know full well the 19th century lore of the rangers in their area. It is very clear that by the period of Wasteland and Wasteland 2 Ranger Center is a center of power, a polity, that is now expanding and consolidating its control of the area. They are the descendants of an army and multi-paramilitary tradition.

[malthaussen]

Actually, I make no claim, paultakeda. I make a personal assertion that the events as described seem implausible to me. I also say "for much the same reasons as Captain Patch has given." Should it have been necessary to reiterate those reasons?

In summary, though, I don't think a military unit would act in the fashion described in the Origin Document, hence I find the document improbable.

The intent of my post, however, was to point out that if the Origin Document is considered, not as a matter of fact, but as a matter of lore, then the objections of Captain Patch, myself, and others who share our opinion go away.

-- Mal

[paultakeda]

The intent of my post, however, was to point out that if the Origin Document is considered, not as a matter of fact, but as a matter of lore, then the objections of Captain Patch, myself, and others who share our opinion go away.

I always took it as a matter of course that the History of Ranger Center as put forth by Ranger Center would gloss over the bad, so there already is some amount of lore involved via propaganda. Bringing justice to the wastes is expansionist rationalization, after all.

We know the corps moved in and the inmates moved out. The history leaves it open to interpretation just how this happened, and Captain Patch's various scenarios are all plausible. Honestly, I don't find what little is written implausible because I don't regard it as complete fact. I don't think there's a need to make it obviously lore by putting in, "Legend says." To me, that defeats the purpose of the history as written as a piece of political justification.

[malthaussen]

Oh, interesting perspective! So the proposed solution just raises a whole new crop of objections!

Dammit.

-- Mal

[paultakeda]

Oh, interesting perspective! So the proposed solution just raises a whole new crop of objections!

Dammit.

-- Mal

Simply reject my reality and substitute your own.

[CaptainPatch]

"History books are written by the victors." Along those lines, biographical texts usually get bent towards saying nice things about the primary subjects, except when the primary subjects are popularly perceived as "Bad Guys". For instance, A History of the Nazi Party would have no compunction in laying out all of the nasty history of the Nazis. In contrast, A History of the French Resistance in World War II would be more likely to gloss over or simply omit anecdotes concerning some/many of the morally questionable acts of the Resistance. I got the impression that the later Post-Apocalyptic Modern Era would tend to portray the Desert Rangers as being heroes of the Revival of Civilization. As such, morally questionable acts done by the Desert Rangers during their formation would be either omitted or rationalized away. Instead, the deliberate expulsion of the prisoners into an environment that pretty much guaranteed a slow, painful death for the majority of them, just so the Engineers can claim the prison and its resources reads as a Pure Selfishness act. A condemnatory History text would offer such an unflattering anecdote thusly; a pro-Desert Rangers text would most likely rationalize why such an act was necessary.

Shortly after the nuclear attack began, the Engineers, seeking shelter, took over the federal prison and expelled the prisoners into the desert to complete their sentences.

That is definitely NOT the description of Good Guy behavior. Nor is there _any_ rationalization to "prove" that it was a necessary act. It reads more like, "It's unsafe and deadly out here; we need a safe place to stay. You prisoners have such a safe place. We are taking it from you and sending you out to where we do NOT want to be." It's like abandoning a baby on a mountainside: "If the baby dies, it wasn't me that killed it." If the "baby" somehow miraculously survives, then it was by the intervention of the gods or Lady Luck. Either outcome, it wasn't me doing the killing." Definitely a full-of-s*** rationalization.

[malthaussen]

I've always disliked that saying. More truthful is that history is written with the approval of the victors until enough time has passed that the revisionists can start insulting their fathers. But that's too wordy.

But one of the reasons that I thought the Origin Document should be considered legendary is just what you point out, Cap: the description is unflattering, and therefore probably not the "Official" record.

Of course, it appears from this thread that some people think the conduct as described is not only not unflattering, but reasonable or even commendable. Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

-- Mal

[CaptainPatch]

Of course, it appears from this thread that some people think the conduct as described is not only not unflattering, but reasonable or even commendable. Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

I definitely hear you -- and it saddens me. I grew up hearing stories of Good Samaritans and how putting yourself out for strangers was an honorable thing to do. But over the years, it actually became necessary to enact Good Samaritan laws just so that those that DO put themselves out for others don't get hit with lawsuits from the victims they were trying to help. It's gotten to the point where "don't get involved" isn't just the safe thing to do, it's the smart thing to do. Happen upon an accident where you can see victims in obvious need of medical assistance? Just keep on driving; don't get involved; it's somebody else's concern, not mine. It's the same kind of mentality where "If he's in prison, he MUST be a Bad Person, and any hardship that gets dumped on him is just him getting his just desserts." No need to review any case history files to ascertain whether or not someone might have been wrongfully incarcerated. They are there, in prison = Bad Guy. End of story and end of concern as to whatever harsh Fate may befall them.

[malthaussen]

May be a generational thing, Captain -- although I shudder to open THAT can of worms.

I think (tho' I'm speculating) that when the whole Origin Story thing was written, the writer was showing a little of the "Military Madman Out of Control" trope that was popular back before we went whole-hog in the other direction.

-- Mal

[DanielUSMC]

Hey everyone, I was directed to come talk to you all about the Ranger Origin story and realism due in part to being an Active Duty Captain in the United States Marine Corps. From skimming over the subject at hand the mere premise that a trained military group who survives any sort of post-apocalyptic situation would automatically do the following:

1) Assess casualties and immediately begin a HA/DR (Humanitarian Aid / Disaster Relief) mission in the local area (much like the national guard. While at the same time setting up long range and short range terrestrial and radio communications in order to contact higher headquarters with a SITREP (Situation Report). In the event that no contact with higher headquarters is made the highest ranking officer or staff non commissioned officer will immediately stage and establish a FOB (Forward Operating Base) as a center of operations. These FOB's are completely and utterly self sufficient. In California (where this takes place) there is a multitude of Marine Corps / Navy / Army / Airforce bases scattered about - so their next step would be to contact other commands within the area for a "Common Operational Picture" of the totality of the distruction.

2) The Marine Corps and Army prides itself on "Decentralized Leadership" - which is the term that leaders are formed and made all the way down to the lowest non-commissioned officer rank, which is "Corporal". In the event that all the officers are killed, a "total anarchy" situation would not evolve. Look at Vietnam, there are plenty of instances where young officers were killed leaving the platoons to accomplish the mission as the responsibility then falls to the next highest rank.

3) Marines and Soldiers are trained in survival tactics from the outset of their basic training. With this knowledge a well established FOB would be created almost immediately and the surrounding area would be evacuated to shelters. To imagine that EVERY officer of EVERY command within the area is dead, and all that is left is the enlisted, is absurd. So it would just make sense that there would be an "assumption of command" and that officer, be him a Captain or a Colonel, would take charge and begin issuing orders to deploy units and patrols in order to scout, gather intelligence, gather resources.

4) About 95% of all Marines and Soldiers are "Alpha" Personalities, which means that the quote "Retreat, hell, we just got here!" would be a big part in a post-apocalyptic situation. Desertion would almost be lower than 1%.

Please message me if you have any questions I would love to keep this post going.

[CaptainPatch]

Hey everyone, ...

THANK YOU! I was feeling mighty lonely, arguing with people that have no real understanding of how chain-of-command would function in a post-Apocalyptic setting.

[DanielUSMC]

Just stating the facts