Honest Hearts: Who do you side with?

Lagwagon04

Lagwagon04

First time out of the vault
Just recently finished another playthrough of HH and decided to help Joshua Graham again. I just find Daniel to be a dick. And even if you help him, he's still a dick and unhappy in the end slides. So I usually find myself helping the burned man wipe out the white legs since I think running away is not the answer.

What do you guys/gals like doing in HH?
 
Lagwagon04 said:
What do you guys/gals like doing in HH?
Click to expand...

Getting the Compliance Regulator, reading Survivalist entries (but not shlepping around to find them), leaving. As far as endings go, when I bother with them I help JG bc I'm not an idiot and self defense is not immoral.
 
I always thought the decision to defend or leave Zion was far less important than the decision as to what to do with Salt-Upon-Wounds. Nearly everyone agrees that defending Zion is the correct course of action, and honestly I can't understand arguments otherwise. If the White Legs were the Legion or some other force not easily scattered (so that sticking in Zion would be an arduous and likely not long-term solution) it would be more grey.

The real choice comes in how you shape the Burned Man, and it's evidenced in that when I've talked to people you get numerous arguing strongly for different decisions. Personally, I think the best choice easily is to "save his soul" and spare Salt-Upon-Wounds, but I can see other arguments that keeping the Burned Man raging but for a good cause is a reasonable option.
 
Getting the Compliance Regulator and She's Embrace, convincing Follows-Chalk to explore civilization, and wiping out the White Legs. Joshua is right--evacuating Zion will only make it more likely that the White Legs will raid and pillage again. And considering what Caesar does to his friends, it's better the White Legs die at the hands of the Zion tribes than on Legion crosses or as slaves. What makes Salt-Upon-Wounds think Caesar won't throw HIM against the wall?
 
This discussion makes me reminisce on my playthrough of Honest Hearts. After the first assault of the White Legs at the beginning of the DLC, I accidentally sniped Follows-Chalk before he could talk with me, mistaking him for an enemy. This made every single npc I encountered hostile, including important ones such as Daniels and Joshua Graham. It took me a good hour and a half before I realised my mistake.
Good times.
 
Funny thing is, When I first played it I had to side with Joshua. When my brother played it he sided with Daniel as the moral choice (both of us not particularly roleplaying except as ourselves.) If that's not an example of good moral choices I'm not sure what is.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the vast-vast majority of gamers side with Joshua Graham. Not necessarily just because you agree with him but because the game makes it so that siding with Daniel to be nonsensical at this point in the game.

By the time you reach the Valley, you've killed probably 200+ human beings for far less justified reasons than, "a bunch of innocent people are going to be displaced from their homes by allies to Caesar." Max Caulfield might have a reason to side with Daniel over Joshua but at this point, you've already demonstrated a willingness to kill evil people in defense of the innocent even if you're the goodiest good karma ever.

I'm fairly certain Follows Chalk should also be convinced to stay in the Valley because I believe he's probably murdered the moment he leaves.
 
I help the ex-Malpais Legate and exterminate the White Legs. They weren’t fit to be Legionaries. It’s for that reason that I attempt to spare Salt-Upon-Wounds. Not because I believe his death immoral, or life sacred, but because he and his wretched gang of dogs are not worthy of being Legion, and I want him to live with the knowledge of his failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top