The Path of Joshua or Daniel?

[New Willinium]

Honest Hearts is home to what is one of, if not THE, most beutiful places in the American Wasteland. Where the water is clean, the land is green . . ish, and non-radioactive rain pours down the valley quite oftan. Truly Zion is a place to be protected and cherished, but a malicious group of marauders has come to Zion to destroy it and its people. The Dead-Horses lead by Joshua Graham and the Sorrows led by Father(Brother?) Daniel.

Joshua Graham is a deeply religous man, but also a deeply hurting man. Graham is strong, brave, cunning, intelligent, and patient. Yet the Burned Man is ruthless to the extreme, and has committed a great many atrocities in the name of an Evil lord. For his failure at Hoover Dam Joshua was covered in pitch, set aflame and thrown down the nearby canyon. And yet the man lived, and returned to his people in New Cannan. The Prodigal son has returned and is attempting to repent for his sins. Will you help him in this? Or will you push him further down the path of hatred.

Daniel is a New Cannanite. He is a greatly religous man, but also a naive man. Daniel is strong in his convictions, kind to any who come before him, and patient towards his flock The Sorrows in the attempt to convert them. Since the advent of the White Legs arrival in Zion Daniel has been evacuating and relocating the Sorrows out of Zion to safety. And yet with the abandiment of Zion so shall its corruoption come to pass. Will you help Daniel with safeguarding the Sorrow's? Or is the safeguard of Zion worth the cost of Innocence?

These are two very different men and their actions shall decide the fate of Zion and its people. Who do you agree with? Whose path do you follow?

I followed the path of Graham, yet I tempered his rage. Zion remains pure and untainted.

[Baldur's Door]

I always go with Joshua Graham. Only tried Daniel's way once to see the results and I didn't like it one bit. Even in today's world the safety of one's family is more important than keeping their "innocence" and purity and whatnot. I see Joshua as much more wiser and much more of a leader than Daniel is, and I also agree with his decision. A group such as the White Legs had to be exterminated. No other way to deal with threats. If I was aiming for the "perfect ending" this DLC made it very easy.

[Vassago Rain]

No one has ever in the history of forever sided with Daniel unironically.

[Vita, Mortis, Careo]

I have had Couriers side with each repeatedly, depending on the character.

[New Willinium]

Originally posted by Two Bears:

I have had Couriers side with each repeatedly, depending on the character.

It is always nice to see the someone so well known commenting on the forums. I can understand ypur answer, done so myself quite a few times. But you would you assist if YOU (Unsure how to bold letters) were in the situation. I am rather curious to how the forums answer this.

[Vassago Rain]

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

Originally posted by Two Bears:

I have had Couriers side with each repeatedly, depending on the character.

It is always nice to see the someone so well known commenting on the forums. I can understand ypur answer, done so myself quite a few times. But you would you assist if YOU (Unsure how to bold letters) were in the situation. I am rather curious to how the forums answer this.

I would never, under any circumstance, side with Daniel. He's essentially holding the idiot ball.

[New Willinium]

Originally posted by Vassago Rain:

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

It is always nice to see the someone so well known commenting on the forums. I can understand ypur answer, done so myself quite a few times. But you would you assist if YOU (Unsure how to bold letters) were in the situation. I am rather curious to how the forums answer this.

I would never, under any circumstance, side with Daniel. He's essentially holding the idiot ball.

Please elaborate on how so? Daniel has been able to safely, for the most part, evacuate the majority of the Sorrows from Zion. What denotes him as holding the " Idiot Ball"?

[Vita, Mortis, Careo]

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

Originally posted by Two Bears:

I have had Couriers side with each repeatedly, depending on the character.

It is always nice to see the someone so well known commenting on the forums. I can understand ypur answer, done so myself quite a few times. But you would you assist if YOU (Unsure how to bold letters) were in the situation. I am rather curious to how the forums answer this.

I don't know. I do not roleplay myself, as doing so is considered bad form in tabletop circles, and those mores carry over into my videogames.

[Vassago Rain]

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

Originally posted by Vassago Rain:

I would never, under any circumstance, side with Daniel. He's essentially holding the idiot ball.

Please elaborate on how so? Daniel has been able to safely, for the most part, evacuate the majority of the Sorrows from Zion. What denotes him as holding the " Idiot Ball"?

He's under siege in paradise. He has at his disposal Graham, who led Caesar's army for many, many years, and two tribes of warriors. There is also a pretty dangerous courier guy who ended up there due to some unfortunate circumstances, yet instead of using all the forces at his disposal to crush the worthless peasant tribals knocking on heaven's door, he decides it's better to relocate EVERYBODY.

EVERYBODY has to get out of the paradise canyon, and he expresses that it's very urgent you help him, yet doesn't lift a finger to help anyone, and even keeps information from his own tribals, 'because reasons.'

I don't know about you, but I don't see the point in leaving the best, most fertile plot of land in existence just because of some tribals. Even if it was the enclave reborn hot dropping in vertibirds, I still don't see a legit reason to abandon Zion without a fight.

[New Willinium]

Originally posted by Two Bears:

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

It is always nice to see the someone so well known commenting on the forums. I can understand ypur answer, done so myself quite a few times. But you would you assist if YOU (Unsure how to bold letters) were in the situation. I am rather curious to how the forums answer this.

I don't know. I do not roleplay myself, as doing so is considered bad form in tabletop circles, and those mores carry over into my videogames.

. . Is it truly concidered bad form to rp yourself? Why? Don't answer if you do not wish to. Was of topic of me.

[Vita, Mortis, Careo]

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

Originally posted by Two Bears:

I don't know. I do not roleplay myself, as doing so is considered bad form in tabletop circles, and those mores carry over into my videogames.

. . Is it truly concidered bad form to rp yourself? Why? Don't answer if you do not wish to. Was of topic of me.

I don't want to derail your topic, so the Cliff's Notes edition is that playing yourself rather than a character causes the player to self-indentify within the context of the game. So now an insult from a party member is now an insult to the player. The DM having the bad guy target the character is now a personal action. Disagreements spill over into real life and the game begins to break down with feelings being hurt.

[New Willinium]

Originally posted by Two Bears:

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

. . Is it truly concidered bad form to rp yourself? Why? Don't answer if you do not wish to. Was of topic of me.

I don't want to derail your topic, so the Cliff's Notes edition is that playing yourself rather than a character causes the player to self-indentify within the context of the game. So now an insult from a party member is now an insult to the player. The DM having the bad guy target the character is now a personal action. Disagreements spill over into real life and the game begins to break down with feelings being hurt.

. . . I guess I can understand that. I've always tried to put myself into the game so that I can get more immeresed into the world and its problems. Makes the people and the world feel more alive to me.*shrugs*Different Strokes I guess.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

. . . I guess I can understand that. I've always tried to put myself into the game so that I can get more immeresed into the world and its problems. Makes the people and the world feel more alive to me.*shrugs*Different Strokes I guess.

Where as I never play as 'me', I found trying to be me tends to put me off playing.
I've done Daniel, Graham and once chaos but more often then not its either one of the grahams or I skip the DLC entirely.

[Vita, Mortis, Careo]

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

Originally posted by Two Bears:

I don't want to derail your topic, so the Cliff's Notes edition is that playing yourself rather than a character causes the player to self-indentify within the context of the game. So now an insult from a party member is now an insult to the player. The DM having the bad guy target the character is now a personal action. Disagreements spill over into real life and the game begins to break down with feelings being hurt.

. . . I guess I can understand that. I've always tried to put myself into the game so that I can get more immeresed into the world and its problems. Makes the people and the world feel more alive to me.*shrugs*Different Strokes I guess.

The philosophy of player characters is reverse when it comes to tabletop vs. video games. In video games the player is almost universally some sort of chosen one, and as such the game is weighted in the player's favor and there is almost never permanent failure states. Tabletop games have the character being on even par with the game world, typically average Joe type characters and feature permanent failure states. You will have characters die and that death is final. Imagine if that character is you.

[New Willinium]

Originally posted by Two Bears:

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

. . . I guess I can understand that. I've always tried to put myself into the game so that I can get more immeresed into the world and its problems. Makes the people and the world feel more alive to me.*shrugs*Different Strokes I guess.

The philosophy of player characters is reverse when it comes to tabletop vs. video games. In video games the player is almost universally some sort of chosen one, and as such the game is weighted in the player's favor and there is almost never permanent failure states. Tabletop games have the character being on even par with the game world, typically average Joe type characters and feature permanent failure states. You will have characters die and that death is final. Imagine if that character is you.

. . Having never played any tabletop rpg I can say that i've never been put into that sort of situation, but I can imagine that it would be a bit of a pain if YOU(as in your character not you Two-Bear) died without any ways to fix the problem. I would hope that one would maintain a certain disconect from their characters so as not to take things personally. Thats part of being a good Rp'er, is it not?

[MTV]

Originally posted by Dagoth Will:

Originally posted by Two Bears:

I don't want to derail your topic, so the Cliff's Notes edition is that playing yourself rather than a character causes the player to self-indentify within the context of the game. So now an insult from a party member is now an insult to the player. The DM having the bad guy target the character is now a personal action. Disagreements spill over into real life and the game begins to break down with feelings being hurt.

. . . I guess I can understand that. I've always tried to put myself into the game so that I can get more immeresed into the world and its problems. Makes the people and the world feel more alive to me.*shrugs*Different Strokes I guess.

I think if you roleplay yourself in a video game you're missing out. You're restricted to one allignment and view set. I favor evil or neutral chars in roleplaying games. I always do good guy characters too though. I like seeing the different outcomes for all the choices you can make.