Did you kill the whitelegs or evacuate?

[Tea Thief]

curious

[Vex Hilarius]

Both for the acheivements.

[Tea Thief]

Originally posted by Redding:

Both for the acheivements.

thanks Joshua

[ElPascal]

Killing them and letting Salt-Upon-Wounds go is objectively the best outcome imho, but I also did both for the sake of variety.

[Mister Holdout]

Originally posted by Redding:

Both for the acheivements.

Same.

[Scythia]

My first choice was to fight the White Legs, because it matched my ideas of self-reliance and just retribution. As the battle went on, I felt kind of bad about the decision, seeing the Sorrows and Dead Horses mercilessly slaughtering White Legs. Be careful when you battle monsters that you do not become a monster.

[Vassago Rain]

I find it impossible to agree with Daniel's naive ideas, but the deciding factor for killing all the whitelegs is the survivalist's journals.

[TheUnknown]

I killed them

[Johnny Casey]

According to Steam global achievement status, more people have choose to fight them than evacuating.

[Grendalcat]

I have done both, but even though evacuating is supposedly the "good" ending, every time but once I fight the White Legs, because they deserve it.

[psychotron666]

Both because I've done the dlc like 10 times. The Daniel route is more fleshed out and actually more fun, but nobody in their right mind roleplay wise would do it. Let's keep the innocence of these retarded tribals in a world where they're gonna get enslaved or eaten by the next people they meet.

Joshua is the only logical way, but unfortunately that mission feels lazily slapped together, and the entire dlc up til then is useless because it's all fetch quests for items to help Daniel, so I don't see why you can't just do Joshua's rotue right from the beginning.

My favourite ending is the chaos in Zion, because ♥♥♥♥ Daniel and Joshua, and it's my least favorite dlc so I can get through it the quickest, and get the loot I want on the way

[Vassago Rain]

Originally posted by psychotron666:

Both because I've done the dlc like 10 times. The Daniel route is more fleshed out and actually more fun, but nobody in their right mind roleplay wise would do it. Let's keep the innocence of these retarded tribals in a world where they're gonna get enslaved or eaten by the next people they meet.

Joshua is the only logical way, but unfortunately that mission feels lazily slapped together, and the entire dlc up til then is useless because it's all fetch quests for items to help Daniel, so I don't see why you can't just do Joshua's rotue right from the beginning.

My favourite ending is the chaos in Zion, because ♥♥♥♥ Daniel and Joshua, and it's my least favorite dlc so I can get through it the quickest, and get the loot I want on the way

I've done it 200+ times, and only once have I done what Daniel wants me to do. Graham aligns with my real world politics and religious views, but the deciding factor in what's really a mighty whitey scenario is, and always has been, the survivalist's journals. Graham is foolish in his quest, but his means justify my end. Daniel is incredibly naive. Morally, there's no way I could justify doing anything BUT destroying all the whitelegs, but there needs to be some kind of trigger to make me feel righteous in my decision. Graham talks a big game, and Daniel counters his big game, right up until you've read all the journal entries.

Once you do, either roleplaying or actual conviction will take over. Regardless, your reaction is likely to be rather volatile, the outcome swift, and you'll have zero regards. For all the pomp and glory Dead money gets, it's as nothing compared to the JUSTICE levied out once you learn the truth of honest hearts. It's why one of them is called pretentious, and the other isn't.

[Malvastor]

I fought them. I'm rather skeptical of the "we'll go somewhere else and they won't/can't follow us" logic, especially since the same character (I think?) says the White-Legs are jerks because they can't live off the land peacefully and need to raid others to survive. If that's true, then either

1. they're going to track the other tribes down somehow, because they have to

2. They're going to migrate and become a lethal problem for someone else

or 3. They're going to starve anyway.

Technically the canon endings say this doesn't happen, but my courier doesn't have access to that.

The other factor is that there's nowhere you can go to just run away from war. Be as peaceful as you like, but if there's one lesson to learn from history it's that someone out there is less peaceful than you. It may be the NCR, the Legion, the Khans, or some totally other group, but someone's going to expand into or evolve in wherever the tribes are heading. If they defang themselves completely, that meeting probably won't go well. Better to learn war but know when not to fight.

On similar lines, I don't subscribe to the notions that knowing how to fight means you're inherently violent, or that it winning a war will ruin some spiritual 'innocence' that the tribes have. And Daniel comes off as a little patronizing when he makes those arguments.

[joje]

Kill the whitlegs, the valley belongs to the sorrows and dead horse. They have a peacefull place with fresh water and actual plants. Also they are far away from the political drama in the wasteland.

[Tea Thief]

Originally posted by Malvastor:

I fought them. I'm rather skeptical of the "we'll go somewhere else and they won't/can't follow us" logic, especially since the same character (I think?) says the White-Legs are jerks because they can't live off the land peacefully and need to raid others to survive. If that's true, then either

1. they're going to track the other tribes down somehow, because they have to

2. They're going to migrate and become a lethal problem for someone else

or 3. They're going to starve anyway.

Technically the canon endings say this doesn't happen, but my courier doesn't have access to that.

The other factor is that there's nowhere you can go to just run away from war. Be as peaceful as you like, but if there's one lesson to learn from history it's that someone out there is less peaceful than you. It may be the NCR, the Legion, the Khans, or some totally other group, but someone's going to expand into or evolve in wherever the tribes are heading. If they defang themselves completely, that meeting probably won't go well. Better to learn war but know when not to fight.

On similar lines, I don't subscribe to the notions that knowing how to fight means you're inherently violent, or that it winning a war will ruin some spiritual 'innocence' that the tribes have. And Daniel comes off as a little patronizing when he makes those arguments.

Nicely put. You can't run forever.

(Also, Daniel seems to lump the courier as a degenerate throughout the dialogue, pretty bold considering he's replying on him to do his dirty work.)

[Malvastor]

Originally posted by Raddle:

(Also, Daniel seems to lump the courier as a degenerate throughout the dialogue, pretty bold considering he's replying on him to do his dirty work.)

The ubiquitous video game logic of "I don't like you but I inexplicably need you for literally everything".