The Ludonarrative Dissonance of AJ's "Problem" and why I believe it's a red herring *SPOILERS*
This is a theory I've been mulling over since Episode 2 but I think I can fully articulate it now.
So for many, people are convinced that there is a "problem" with AJ becoming a so-called "killer" and eventually "snapping".
This is not only the most popular theory surrounding AJ, but also heavily implied in the game especially in Episode 3 where every other scene either has a block of text basically saying "HEY YOU KNOW WHAT' YOU'RE DOING TO AJ, RIGHT?" or characters in-game such as James critiquing your parenting skills at every turn, almost mind-numbingly. Throughout out the season itself there are subtle implications as to what AJ's true "problem is".
But I'm not convinced his problem is actually what we all think it is.
Now, the reason I created this thread is because I'm playing a Clem that raises AJ to be a hardened, pragmatic survivalist. And the game is letting me do that. From my perspective, I just prefer AJ, in the case that Clementine might not always be around, learns how to properly raise himself and survive, in the same manner Lee taught Clem. Because in the end, AJ can only rely on himself.
Now I'm going to explain why this notion that AJ will "snap" from being a murderer (whatever this loose term means) is actually a clever red herring.
Firstly, that fact we're playing a game where killing other human beings is actually a fairly common occurence (because TWD is about the conflict of people, not walkers) and where the narrative has no problem dehumanizing people into enemies (such as the Delta soldiers we attack on the boat), this ludonarrative dissonance to me should be a clue that the theory of AJ snapping actually has shaky legs to stand on. Shooting, stabbing, choking, killing... violence is a way life for the entirety we have played every TWD season. Why would a game that freely expresses these mechanics also be in such philosophical opposition to them? To throw you off.
James, a character that is the loudest in-game preacher of pacifism -- without any evidence-- says that AJ will eventually snap and lose his innocence, in a manner that similarly happened to him. But clearly we are able to see James as an normally adjusted person (as much one can be in a post-apocalypse) who was able to ultimately overcome the trauma he faced. He didn't descend into endless death. He wasn't doomed. So one has to wonder why James thinks AJ can't experience growth and maturity the same way he has?
We can also clearly see Clem whose background is very similar to AJ, is also relatively well-adjusted and whose character hasn't all descended into inane endless death. Clem can kill the Stranger, kill Lee, kill Kenny, all before the age of 12. She's also seen more people grotesquely die in front of her more than anyone should. Yet the game is still able to offer Clem the extension of not being a lost cause in a way that's not afforded to AJ.
What's interesting is the game doesn't actually confirm AJ's doom by your parenting exactly. It brings light to it and wants to question it, but it never actually reveals to you what AJ is doomed by and why and for whatever reason.
This is because ultimately there is no right or wrong to raise AJ. AJ regardless is a character doomed by the wrath and ruthlessness of the apocalypse. The player is simply guiding him to that inevitability, but your parenting should not be mistaken as prevention loss.
There will always be a Marlon and Lily in the post-apocalypse. Trying to be James and situationally trying to prevent such normal predicaments only delays the inevitable, and it regresses AJ capability of properly adjusting to the real world when it is required.
This is why the notion of "I won't let him be a killer" is so interesting to me. Why are people saying they don't want him to be a killer, when he already is? There's no preventing from whatever AJ is destined upon to be. The only thing you can control are the lens he might view his actions through. It is obvious that by the ending of EP4 that whatever person AJ is, it was already formed before you even played EP1. The AJ everyone is worried about theirs becoming is__ already__ that.
The red herring to me is that hardening AJ... is what might actually transform him to a hero. And sheltering AJ won't always offer him the greatest solution. Ultimately there is no protecting AJ. Directly and indirectly he will face the Lilys and Marlons of the world, and one would be dubious to believe that in every situation AJ comes across someone like Lily, that that person in conflict should never be taken out for the greater good and safety of everyone else due to some flimsy moral standard.
Look at the signs. Given what happens early in Episode 2 (Lily and Abel search for Marlon), AJ's manslaughter of Marlon in EP1 retroactively saved the Ericson from actually being completely run over. Without Marlon's death, the Ericson school would not have been given enough time and warning to organize and build a defense against the Delta's eventual raid.
And episode 3 is where this comes into fruition. Insisting that AJ bite Dorian's ear prevents the person you saved from having their finger dismembered. And telling him to shoot Lily ensures she won't harm anyone ever again.
It is no coincidence that the people coming around to appreciating Aj are appreciating the fact that AJ has become more heroic in EP3; heroics that ultimately derive from his killer instinct, not from a need to "atone". The drive that is supposedly AJ's "problem" is actually his greatest strength.
And that is the red herring.
Comments
And the last thing that continues to convince me is that if you tell AJ to shoot Lily, he is left "feeling POWERFUL".
Now contrast that when you don't tell him to shoot, he is left feeling "HELPLESS".
Powerful to me is just a very unique way of expressing what AJ felt. It's a precise word with a real weight of meaning. TT didn't just simply write in the slides that he was "left feeling justified when you told him to shoot Lily".
They made sure to imply that AJ felt some type of power, some type of confidence over being given the decision to shoot Lily.
Now if shooting Lily was a decision that would finalize AJ's "problem" push him to the point of no return, why would it particularly leave him feeling powerful? It could have been "felt ruthless", "felt crazy", but they specifically choose the word "POWERFUL". POWERFUL is a neutral word, that can be construed as positive or negative. There is a pro to being powerful, and also a con to having power, depending on the context. But just truly think of the intention they had with putting that term there.
You can think making AJ killhappy is the right choice thats fine, I dont get anything else youve posted, the game is hinting AJ will end up doing something horrific if you dont change the path hes on and thats something we will have to wait and see if he does end up doing something. Personally I think its a bit of a waste if AJ never does anything after all that build up but really this is just what telltale does, every choice needs some guy judging you for it they are just trying to get you to think about your decisions
I also thought the same thing, like why not let Aj bite off the guard's ear to save Violet/Louis, why not let Aj kill Lilly off when she was only harming the kids to finally stop her; and the accent is always put that Aj might become a killer, for that to turn out true, something terrible has to happen in ep.4, but like I don't see killing any of the kids out of rage or anything ( not even Willy); when if he kills someone who may cause harm to Clem, the kids or himself, I have no problem with that, he's just protecting people; the only thing I can possibly come up with ( and it's still outstretched) is the fact that he can somehow end up killing James (as he is determinant at the end of ep.3), and as I said, this is the only possible 'negative' outcome I can presume by letting Aj kill bad people
This choice better have some major fucking consequences or that would just be stupid as fuck.
I think it's all bluff.
If Aj DOES do something, it won't be determinant. It'll be canon. Which means regardless of how and what you teach him "X will happen".
What counts as consequences?
Your theory made me reflect and ultimately, I agree with you. AJ is already a Hardened Survivour. Just take Sarah or Tenn for comparison, AJ is strong .And it is something required of him by the apocalyptic world he lives in. James in particular is talking my ear off about him becoming "a killerrr" but has he forgotten the world they live in?? At ANY point you can encounter a crazy person with a gun pointed to your head (there are ppl kidnapping children in this season ffs) and... what do you do? Are you seriously saying I shouldn't teach my AJ that it's ok to kill if everything else fails and his SURVIVAL is threatened? This is why i think it's more important, in my opinion, to shift focus from "DON'T let him become a kiluur" (because of morals which come first ever in a normal society, which they are NOT part of, not anymore) to when should you kill. Under what circumstance. Do your emotions/ personal feelings factor into this decision and if so, should you let them? Is this fair to the person you point your gun at? Should you even be fair to them at all?
Killing does not have to be inherently a bad thing. There is killing someone to save someone else. There is killing someone to save yourself when everything else fails. There is mercy kill. Teaching AJ awareness about these things, fairness, I think this should be the most important thing.
(btw i saw what you replied to me about James and yea dude, this is exactly my opinion as well. I can't believe I liked him in the beginning. Curse him for implating stupid ideas in AJ's head, wished I had an option in game to shake him by his tiny lil shoulders until he understood as well how BS James' notion is. Walkers are attracted by sound, incredible observation my dude. Now the only thing I like about James is his final fantasy-esque looking haircut. The guy's not all there.)
Agree, but don't agree because come on this is Neo-Telltale they're not that smart, right? And even then, how would they implement what you explained and teach the player what you said? Usually it's from an outside character commenting, but we have to rule James out.
It won't really matter much one way or another unless something exceptionally drastic occurs. AJ is pretty much similar in all "variants" he has.
which is usual fare for TT.
Joker from Telltale's batman is a refreshing departure from Telltale's normal. I was hoping they would follow the "Joker" route for AJ in your teachings molding him.
That was a very good text. Still, i'm inclined to disagree. People just... change, when they experience power (AJ felt "powerful"). And, well, James and Clem didn't go the full psycho rote (i mean, James kinda did for a while, and Clem is determinanto to that), but there's a big differencce between these 3. AJ is being raised in the apocalypse. He does not know what moral is, what psychology is, what being "good" is. If he ever became a psycho, it would be because no one showed him the "good" about the old world, only the "evil" about the new one.
Plus, as much as this makes sense, having AJ do bad things constantly without any negative consequences whatsoever is just ultimately pointless. Making him do bad things which only brings instant "good" with no long-term "bad" is also... Not very good for a choice & consequence type of game.
Plus²: You don't start feeling crazy the moment you kill someone. I'd imagine, first, you really would feel powerful more than anything else.
Boy, you sure wrote a lot, didn't you? Well, I commend your astuteness on doing this topic.
Eh, personally, I've never been too found of the whole "make em a strong, hardened killer who does what they have to--make em a 'true' survivor" mentality. Not to say that it doesn't have any bases or that there shouldn't be any characters like that, but I just don't find it that interesting.
And Alvin Junior, kinda like Gabriel in the previous installment, is already some form of strong, hardened(whatever those mean this week), and willing to do what they have to and both have examples(David) and/or(Conrad) experiences(Marlon) where pushing that further to be some killer has been the WRONG way to go about things.
Both are more interesting because they are capable of being that while also being thoughtful, occasionally amicable kids the rest of the time, imo.
Nah, I believe if this story was smarter and/or more productive than it was, the red herring in this episode wouldn't be that making AJ a killer would "make him a hero" or whatever, but that Tennessee suddenly level jumping to break that boundary would be a problem.
I think you're overlooking something massive that @FuckingRiverBR touched on; AJ's upbringing.
From what we've seen of their upbringing Clementine and AJ have had similar paths. But you have to account for what we haven't seen. Clem had nearly 9 years of a straightforward childhood. AJ did not. He has never been apart of a functional society (the closest he's come is probably the New Frontier or Wellington and even then it's a crude imitation of the world prior). He doesn't regularly consume media. He doesn't have peers. He doesn't have any baseline of normalcy to compare against. Clem knows how the world should be. AJ doesn't.
Without any societal influences he instead is influenced much more greatly by his immediate surroundings, be it environments, actions or people. It's a very unique and ultimately alien situation to us that's hard to grasp.
Regardless I have to disagree with your post as a whole for 1 reason; a sense of morality and ethics should be developed before taken to an extreme with action. It's clear by the questions he asks throughout the season (especially early episode 2) that he hasn't fully developed an understanding of right and wrong, so thrusting him into situations where he has to act upon it is a faulty foundation.
If moral questions and development follows actions then it will be built by those actions, and so destructive things can be justified and used to build a faulty moral code. This is laying the tracks as the train is going. (I feel like I can work a trolley problem joke in here somewhere...)
And lastly even if the degradation of the old world moral norms increases one's chance for survival; is it worth it? Is it sustainable beyond an individual level? Can humanity survive without some universal ethics?
There's one quote that's been used all over the place and has largely lost its meaning. But the comics have themes and contrast to leading up to it that ultimately make it one of the best moments of the entire series
I love that quote! I like Ricks optimistic vision for the future, the things he says, how he maintains hope in a world whos inhabitants lost hope, that to me speaks about the kind of guy Rick is
The problem is there is nothing in the game that lets the player teach "morals and ethics" to AJ.
When it comes to his "problem", Clem can only say "yeah you were right" or "no you were wrong" after Marlon's death. That is literally it.
Like the game never actually gives us a chance to sit AJ down and have an actual conversation with him about learning social cues or moral ethics. So this relating of raising AJ to tracks on a train is in itself faulty. How is telling AJ to spare Lily actually teach him anything? It doesn't.
No, she does try to go into depth. It isn't just "you were wrong". It's "you killed him when he was no longer a threat, that's why it was wrong".
Of course AJ points out how this argument can be flawed when taken at face value, because she killed Lee when he was handcuffed and "not a threat" but that's when she explains the difference between mercy and flat out murder.
Hell, this gets a physical demonstration with Abel. He was terrified of turning so Clementine stopped him from having to (determinately of course), showing AJ that sometimes you can prevent further suffering with certain cases of killing.
Now when AJ reminisces about this later, Clem could've actually explained this to him, but she did tell it to Lily and AJ definitely heard and since he's always listening... yeah.
I could see AJ being seperated from Clem after the explosion and ending up in the "care" of either Lilly, or James for a while. Both would do their best to turn AJ against Clem. And how succesful they'll be will depend on what Clem already taught AJ.
I dunno, would need another time skip though, to make it believable. Maybe if Clem got injured and was being nursed back to health at the school?
Okay, now that I've written it out, I'm not so sure anymore about this theory. Ehm… nevermind?
At this point I think it'd make more sense for AJ to turn out to be an absolutely anger issue riddled psycho on the not shoot Lilly route. Think about it: AJ doesn't shoot Lilly, what happens? James dies gruesomely right in front of his eyes. AJ should be feeling frustrated at this. He should be thinking "Clem made the wrong call. Not killing was UNDOUBTEDLY a mistake". This is what should actually make AJ flip and stop him from listening to Clem anymore.
In my honest opinion killing Lilly at that point is just common sense, there's no way around it - you're not telling AJ to enjoy it, you're simply telling him to do what needs to be done, for painfully obvious reasons. Whether or not killing should be enjoyable/or something casual was already addressed in episode 2 with the dibs talk. I'll feel really frustrated if what I taught him about killing before is then ignored just because I did the sensible thing to do.
Told you guys.
AJ was never going to go crazy. Red herring.
Trusting AJ grants you the more "favorable" determinant ending (for people who preferred Vi/Louis over Tenn).
Holy shit.