Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki

Untitled[]

Is it possible for glade to have died when walking with prime to project purity?

Activating the Quest[]

I can't seem to get any of the Lyons Pride members to talk about the subject. I have Broken Steel, so it should still work after I completed the main quest.--Berkbelts 05:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If paladin glade dies during the Librety Prime attack will he come back to life when u get back from Broken Steel, CUZ PALADIN GLADE DIED ON THE ATTACK AND IM NOT SURE IF I WILL BE ABLE TO DO THE QUEST, but i dont rele need the caps since i hav over 20000 caps--Chriskillz 23:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Its an easy 1000 caps[]

its too good to pass up......

Speech success chance 100%[]

The main article says:

If your speech skill is high enough, you can convince Gallows to tell you his real name. Save before you try this though, because even with 100 speech you only have a chance of approx. 70%.

This is not correct. I had 100% success chance when asking about his name. Charisma 10, Speech skill 100. WRFan 22:23, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Everybody always playing with 1 CH, makes a guy like me sick to the stomach. Fixed it. Nitty Tok. 22:25, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Can't start the friggen quest.[]

Its an easy and fast way to get 1000 caps, of course, if you can even stat the quest. If you know how to fix this, please do post a comment, I realy want to start this quest.

PSP, if you have a hard time finding Captain Gallows, he is the only one that never leaves the Great Halls

Speech check[]

Is it possible to complete the quest if you fail the speech check? Telos 06:58, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

No. Trunk Monkey 17:04, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

100% Speech Check mystery solved[]

I can't figure this one out. My female character's level is 30 and all of her SPECIAL skills, including Charisma, are at 9. 100% speech. I switched her karma through every possibility thinking maybe that was the difference. Most of the skills are at 100. I keep getting a speech chance of 87% success.

Update: Just got it to 100% by drinking whiskey which gives Charisma +1, putting it at 10. It's definitely tied to charisma + speech. I used some way to raise/lower every SPECIAL and the only one that made any difference was Charisma. I have the Xbox 360 GOTY edition.

Citation needed[]

Under "behind the scenes" it mentions that the betting pool is a reference to the Movie Saving Private Ryan. This isn't objective fact, but a citation is needed because it's stated like it is. If I changed the info so it mentions it's a possible reference, could I then remove the [citation needed]? Just want to be sure before I go ahead and do it. Norqi (talk) 20:24, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Nice find but it's speculation and unnecessary. It's been here, uncited for over half a year now, so I removed it as nobody was able to confirm it in such a long period of time. 68.197.229.108 21:59, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
Good call. Pretty pointless to include it, anyhow. Norqi (talk) 03:24, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

BtS[]

Just as a last-ditch effort, I invite those reading to clarify upon some information on this page:
"Gallows humor is a type of humor that arises in unpleasant, serious, or life-threatening situations. It is typically made by the victim of such situations."
Can anyone provide a definitive correlation between the unmarked quest: Gallows Humor, and the technical term for Gallows Humor? At the moment, this bit of trivia is being considered as speculation by myself and others. Any help would be appreciated towards laying this possible reference to bed. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:40, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why the note can't remain without even needing to invoke the speculation rule. The way it is stated, it simply points out that this quest shares its name with a term for dark humor. It makes no claim of relationship between the quest and the real-world term, other than a common name. It seems foolish to me to remove it, and in fact it seems likely that if it were removed, someone down the line with no knowledge of this discussion would likely add it back in again. --FFIX (talk) 08:13, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

Behind the scenes info[]

OK. I finally read through everything. The way I see it, there are 3 pertinent issues here to define:

  1. Is the term "gallows humor" unambiguous? Does it have a single and clear definition?
  2. What are our policies? Two are at play here:
    1. From content criteria section relating to all content: "All content needs to be accurate. Fallout Wiki aims to provide reliable information. In particular, adding speculation and own inventions (fan fiction, fan art etc.) to articles should be avoided".
    2. From criteria for specific behind the scenes content: ""Behind the scenes" information in the form of cultural references is acceptable page content only when there are direct visual or textual correlations."
  3. Does the note, as written, meet the criteria of being relevant to the article and follows guidelines for inclusion?

My answers:
Question #1. I would way yes. Google search reveals no other real connotation of "gallows humor" other than the widely known definition relating to humor in the face of dire situations. This means the reference is trying to make a clear link to "gallows humor" as defined this way.

Question #2. Content policies work this way: General policies, when not clear on specifics, get trumped by policies outlined specifically for the content in question. If the content guideline was clear for the specific content in question, it would not require further refinement in a more specific guideline. In this case, there is a more specific guideline. We need to meet that threshold above all other guidelines.

With that in mind, is there a direct visual correlation? No. Is there a direct textual correlation? We need to define (or infer the intent) of textual. Mind you, it's not saying contextual. To me this infers that the words or text in question do not have to make any contextual correlation to the content, eg, the content of the quest in question. It simply needs to make a textual correlation, that is simply "is the wording the same?".

In this case, to meet the threshold of the specific content guideline for BtS info, we need to determine if the note in question makes a (clearly) direct correlation to the written title of the quest, since that is what the reference tries to infer.

Question #3. So, does the reference make that clear direct correlation? The main character in the quest is named Gallows. The devs named the quest "Gallows humor" with the full knowledge that there is only one clear definition of that term. The title of the quest can only refer to "gallows humor" as it is commonly defined, if it refers to anything at all. Does this reference meet our inclusion criteria? Yes. The text (from textual correlation) of the quest title is exactly the same as the term in question. The text of the title, if it does refer to anything irl at all, can only refer to gallows humor as defined above. Since the text is exactly the same, and the term is unambiguous, saying that the quest title refers to the real life term "gallows humor" meets our guidelines.

In an instance like this, our content policies do not require any sourced reference, as they allow for latitude in determining if the content makes a clear visual or textual correlation. The fact that the BtS note is unsourced is irrelevant. Our policies do not require a source for content of this type. The only question at play here is does the text make that correlation? Everything else is moot. I would say that the BtS note in question meets our inclusion guidelines. The Gunny  380px-USMC-E7 svg 16:26, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

  • 1st Point - That is not true. Gallows Humor is when the victim or witness of a calamity such as death/war/famine/etc. makes light of the situation. There is nothing like that with the unmarked quest in F3. There are no victims. There are no calamities at hand. It's literally just a bet to find out someone's name. Nothing more, nothing less.
  • 2nd Point - Where are you getting that from? I clearly outlined our policies, which clearly dictate that unverifiable and uncertain information needs to be sourced.
  • 3rd Point - Where are you getting that the developers had full knowledge of anything? You are putting words into their mouths. That's the very definition of subjectivity - writing off assumptions as facts based off of personal opinion. I also refer you to point one. The term is not unambiguous.
  • 4th Point - I refer you to Point 1 again. Unverifiable and uncertain information needs to be sourced. Otherwise, it is speculation, which is against 5+ policies. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 16:45, September 28, 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement