wrt that tweet that said that one of the soldiers in the War Bonds ad was Nate, which the writer then went back on (and then some): the big revelation was that it was Nate in the video, not that Nate was a war criminal.
Nate being a war criminal is one of the first things we learn about him. It's one of the only definitive facts the game gives about him at all.
And when the tweet rescinding that revelation claimed that he wasn't a war criminal at all, that was something that going back on felt wildly wrong and the part I took issue with; he wasn't just taking back that Nate was in the war bonds ad, no, but he was taking back all at once the entirety of and very little that we know for certain about this otherwise blank-slate character.
I saw a lot of distress over him being "declared" a war criminal by fans who were upset that that decision was "made for them." But that's literally all we know about Nate, and we know that about Nate before the game even begins. We learn it as the intro cinematic plays. He was in the 108th Infantry Regiment, he was a highly decorated soldier, and he was (apparently) feeling bad and had taken an anti-war stance in his speeches since, which he was supposed to give at Concord's veteran's hall and potentially again at the Fraternal Post. What you choose to do with that information is up to you, but the character is otherwise wide open to interpretation.
I think some of the distress came from not having a fully, completely blank slate for a protagonist? And if that's something you value, then Nora is marginally the better protagonist, in that her being a lawyer virtually never comes up. (Or, just, any Elder Scrolls protag, I guess, who are all given no greater backstory than "in prison.")
But regardless, remember that all Fallout protagonists have at least some amount of backstory. Vault Dweller from 13, Chosen One, Lone Wanderer, even the Courier and Dwellers from 76 have at least some amount of canon backstory, even if it's just a single sentence. Courier worked for Mojave Express and was hired by House to deliver a package; Nate was a soldier in the 108th and retired to have a family; etc.
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is, please don't recoil from a character being given a negative backstory. Conflict, redemption, guilt, all those things can be meaningful to explore in a character, and shouldn't be rejected on the basis that it's an intended, included part of the game's narrative.
(Frankly, I miss when everyone was mad that you had to be married to a spouse of the opposite gender. That was something to be critical about. Not "this character came pre-loaded with a haunting and deeply fucked-up backstory." But that's just me.)
Despite spending half of most nights pacing, he always wakes you up at exactly 5 AM to work out. It does not occur to him that you might not want this.
He tends to stroke your hair or rub your back. You realize this is because Emmett the cat is the only thing he’s given affection for at least five years.
He informs you unprompted that he would still love you if you were a worm. You ask if he would still love you if you were a ghoul. He has to think about it.
There’s usually a settlement on fire somewhere, but occasionally you have to come up with problems for him to solve. If he doesn’t feel useful he gets sad.
He tries very hard to be nice to your friends. Hancock tries very hard to make him fail.
You tell him he doesn’t have to feel responsible for Shaun. He agrees, for the time being. He will listen to Shaun talk about anything. For hours.
You catch him white-knuckling the bathroom sink and staring into the mirror. That sink hasn’t worked in 200 years. Why is he doing that.
Im well aware you probably have a million and one asks/requests but can you pretty please with sugar on top do some head cannons for Hancock?
I’d be more than happy to share some with you in DMs or reblog a post with my own ideas, but I just wanna hear yours :3
Oh also your post about ghoul cum is incredible lol, I have never seen something like that before. But thank you for putting that out into the world.
You're very welcome for the several hundred words about ghoul cum; around here, I'm really going for a sort of "erotic mad scientist" vibe. My DMs are always open! I just may be a bit spotty with consistent replies at times.
NSFW John Hancock (FO4) Headcanons
(Follow up to the SFW headcanon post here.)
Doesn't like to have sex when he's especially messed up on chems. Of course, as someone who uses in great amounts and regular frequencies, it takes quite a bit of use at one time for him to feel like he's truly intoxicated, but he doesn't trust himself to be able to keep control of his strength when he's truly high. With Hancock, there's "doing a shit load of chems" partying, and there's "fucking like animals" partying, and never the two shall mix.
However, when he's sober enough, he likes to flex that strength; picking you up to fuck you, tossing you around, being able to pin you down despite his small build...it really turns him on. It's one of his favorite things about being a ghoul.
Pan king. Though I think most ghouls eventually come to fall into the pan/"whatever, genitals are genitals" camp, I think John was likely on that train before he was even a ghoul, little open-minded slut that we know he was. I think he might also be open to sharing his partner, but there would be some serious boundaries put down first.
That said, I think he would be especially sensitive to tender sex where you spend time worshipping one another's bodies, getting to know every curve and scar and flaw and coming apart together. He's no stranger to casual flings, hook-ups, one night stands, but someone who loves him for him, wants to have sex as a means to express that love physically...yeah, he'd be a real sucker for that.
He's open to whatever, wherever, whenever. If you're into it, he's more than willing to give it a try if it means it'll make you happy. That said, he won't do anything that he thinks will really, permanently harm you, but it's hard to think of many things you'd ask for that would fall under that category. I mean, Med-X and Stimpacks exist for a reason
a lot of people have already said similar things, but i'm just gonna throw my own two cents in the mix as well. the fact that fnv gives you more freedom than fo4 is already so glaringly obvious in the set-up for your character. for many reasons. but one of the really annoying ones - for me - is the job the main character has. sounds trivial, i know, but starting a new fo4 playthrough just to be met with nate's soldier ramble or seeing nora's laywer certificates (whatever those were, i have a bad memory lmao) already kinda spoils the fun to me. i've seen people do great things with those concepts, but i feel like in the game they just fall flat. being a lawyer has the implications of going to a good college, being rich, having higher social status. being a soldier. well. *insert military propaganda here*. the picket fences, the forced nuclear family. it's such a rigid starting point that i have to imagine most of it away to play a character that is interesting to me. courier six on the other hand - well, they're a courier. that doesn't have many implications. i feel like it's such an easy start into a game. it's a job they could've picked up recently, a while back, or practially forever ago (lets ignore old world blues for a second there, i think this point still counts). you don't have to study to be a courier, no special social class is assigned to it. it seems a part of your character you can reliably choose to give as much or as little importance as you want or need to. of course, courier six has picked that job up in the wasteland, not before the war like the sole survivor has, but i still feel like nora and nate have too many ImplicationsTM attached to them for rpg main characters, jobs incluced