games

20040 readers

1 users here now

Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.

3rd International Volunteer Brigade (Hexbear gaming discord)
Chapo Gamedev Discord
ChapoChat NationStates Region
Vanilla Minecraft Server
Modded Minecraft Server
The Axe and Sickle DnD Discord

Rules

No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
Mark spoilers
No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

In Fallout NV when you visit the tribes in Zion who do you side with? (hexbear.net)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I always ending up siding with Joshua Graham. Mainly because it seems like the other guy (david?) is just doing a really basic "noble savage / white saviour" routine. Like his "solution" is to just pack up and leave in order for the people to preserve some inherent quality of "innocence" he thinks they possess. He would rather have them hounded for the rest of their existence, than do something that challenges his perception of them.

On the other hand Joshua Graham is a mormon

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I always side with Graham but I think Daniel is a solid choice as well.

The White Legs devolve into raiding parties or are wiped out regardless of the ending. The reason why Daniel is correct is that the increasing militancy leads to conflicts between the Dead-horses and the Sorrows, the two tribes friendly to you. As long as there are two war-like tribes in Zion, it will be a place of war. Getting the Sorrows out of Zion isn't necessarily good, but it leads to both of the tribes avoiding conflict.

The problem with leading the Sorrows in war is not that destroying the White Legs is bad, it's that you doom them to same warish behavior of all the other factions. Is land worth killing for if you can live without warfare somewhere else? Even if it is, is it worth the risk that the tribe will view war and violence as a solution to all future problems? We very well could have created the next White Leg faction by giving the Sorrows a reason to use violence.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Don't the Graham ending have a caveat that the dead Horses explicitly don't become the next white legs? I remember something about them preserving their innocence or something

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Nope, and the Dead Horses are already war-like. The Sorrows are the ones that are relatively peaceful.

Here's the quote from siding with Graham about the Dead Horses:

They remained neutral toward the Sorrows, but as years went on, there were periods of competitive friction, even violence, between the tribes.

And here's the quote about the Sorrows:

The Sorrows' transformation from a peaceful, timid tribe into a merciless, warlike people broke Daniel's heart. Over time, the Sorrows became ever more ruthless in their dealings - even with each other.

Of course it changes a bit depending on whether Salt-Upon-Legs is killed by the courier, spared, or let go. But it's absolutely canon that Sorrows and Dead Horses fight and become more brutal.

I remember something about them preserving their innocence or something

Daniel mourns the loss of their innocence in the Graham ending and that's the only ending that mentions innocence.