You don't need to remember he's an ex Legate because Joshua hasn't forgotten. He knows what he did, he's open about it to you. His beliefs however allow him to carry on and attempt to be a better person. You as the player influence that at the end, it's a fairly important choice not just for Joshua but the entire Midwest. Convincing Joshua that his anger is his own anger, and not Gods. That if his belief system is true, the White Legs will be punished for eternity afterwards and he doesn't need to strike down Salt Upon Wounds. The other option turns him into a symbol that the Sorrows and Dead Horses use to become barbarians much like the White Legs were.
It's unfortunate that Joshua immediately executes the three captives before turning on the chieftain, as it lessens the message I feel. They also did a poor job with Daniel and his ending slides. I disagree about them hiding behind religion but to each their own.
Fair, I was just pointing out that I don't believe the game itself frames Joshua as a hero, at least not in the typically uncomplicated way of classic American Westerns. And putting his actions and past aside, everyone in the valley is both a victim and a killer, because that's the world that has been thrust upon them by the past. The survivalist, the White Legs, the Horses are all damned into this cycle of violence. Daniel may be an exception, but he's ineffective in the face of what's going on around him.
And while I do agree with an earlier post that being a shooter warps the story's morals, I don't personally think that more effective player choice is necessary to Honest Hearts. Yes, you can't be a pacifist savior who makes everyone play nice. But that's just the way it is. What's happening in the valley began long before you arrive, and continues long after you leave, you're just a witness to it. I don't think making the player complicit is necessarily asking them to support what's happening. It's just telling them that they can't control it. They can let it drive them like Joshua, or they can watch in disapproval like Daniel. But that's a bit of roleplaying that happens in the player's head, I guess.
Defending yourself against genocidal invaders is also about as basic a moral as you can get.
Agreed, but the framing and tone is also important. To compare it to Westerns again, say John Wayne rides in and saves a frontier town from marauding natives. Is he a hero, or a tool of colonial violence? I'd say most classic films in the genre lean far towards the former, because they have no interest in exploring the larger context. There are exceptions.
It's been a while since I played HH, so I'll assume they probably could've done more to contextualize. But New Vegas generally does a decent job of making you feel that any humans you meet have a reason to be there, and I felt the same about the White Legs, personally. They may be easier to sympathize with than the Fiends around Vegas, for example.
Thinking about it more, let me try and put it this way. Honest Hearts asks if it's even possible to be a pacifist in this world. Despite the simple gameplay, I think it's a question they can get away with seriously asking because the stories of Joshua, Daniel, and the survivalist all tie into it. One could argue that Joshua is only doing what's right for the moment, but doesn't he actually revel in being 'required' to do violence, and then what separates him from the enemy? Is Daniel naive or just the only person living by his own principles? The moral choices here are mostly internal, how the player chooses to interpret the events and motives. etcetc, I'll shut up now.
