The 'Perfect' Run
I plan on starting a new save some time where I only make the morally 'right' decisions, even if they might hinder my and Clem's survival. So far the decisions are something like:
-Save Duck over Shaun
-Side with Kenny over Larry
-Don't give the girl the gun
-Cut David's leg off(!)
-Don't shoot Jolene
-Don't kill the brothers
-Try to save Larry
-Don't loot the car
Does that sound about right?
-Save Duck over Shaun
-Side with Kenny over Larry
-Don't give the girl the gun
-Cut David's leg off(!)
-Don't shoot Jolene
-Don't kill the brothers
-Try to save Larry
-Don't loot the car
Does that sound about right?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I personally don't really see the point, I have an A game, that is all about me trying to adapt - and a B game where I play Lee pretty offensive... knowing what will happen most of the times (of course). Even the B game doesn't feel right for me at the moment. Planing a walkthrough would make my stomach ache.
Might just be me though...
I take issue with that stance being "morally right," but I guess it really depends on your set of morals.
If you look at it from the perspective of non-genre savvy characters maybe they wouldn't necessarily know that there's no way out of a zombie bite, but by that point in the game I think there would be enough information for it to be apparent. It really depends on how one views euthanasia.
She was a Christian, however and they do have strict rules against suicide...
I'm not sure there's any way to frame that choice perfectly, now that I think about it. I wish there was an option to offer to off her yourself so that it's not considered a "suicide."
"To tell you the truth, I disapprove of suicide more than anything."
Imo, there is no right or wrong in this game. It's entirely based upon your decisions.
That's why Lee should have dropped a nut and offered to put the poor girl down himself. What were the words Carley used in the office? That being a murderer is a skill that may come in handy or something like that?
I don't think she meant it like that, as in being able to kill still live people without hesitating as opposed to just walkers. I actually agree that the allowing-suicide dilemma in the game is morally dubious, although personally I would probably give her the gun. But then I thought about how in the midst of a zombie apocalypse one might value the sanctity of life more and as such do everything within their power to maintain it.
I based my choices in the OP on my own sense of what is 'right' and 'wrong' from a moral stance; think of them as what a hero would do in a Hollywood movie (as corny as that sounds). From a survival viewpoint they may well be 'wrong' and could easily lead to Lee's demise.
any good guy perfect run falls down at the meat locker..
the meat locker style scene should be done again in a different setting but either with a saved 'x' or 'x' has turned gotta kill em now yes that might be like katjaa moment but to have it go either way instead of just accepting it might be more interesting..also that sounds like david the teacher but with out the leg issue
LOL good one.
I made the same observation. The choice as presented is a bit screwed up, atleast as a "moral" choice. I didn't give her the gun simply out of common sense; as a rule of thumb, I don't give a loaded weapon to some person I just met, especially if that person's acting a bit... off. The fact it was the only firearm the group had didn't help "Yeah, give the crazy-acting stranger the only gun we have, I see no possible way that can go horribly horribly wrong for us".
They really should have replaced the "give her the gun" option with just outright mercy-killing her yourself. It would've made it a lot less ambiguous as a strictly "moral" choice, and I would've atleast considered it since the risk/reward wouldn't have been so unbalanced. As it was, the first time through I basically saw that choice as: "Do you want Lee to potentially earn a Darwin Award? Yes/No". My Lee said no.
Good luck with that! TWD is about the dilemma, and by definition that means there's no morally right choice in most cases.
No halfhearted philosophy here.
I believe the choice with Irene has more to do with allowing people to give up or not. Do you give her the easy, merciful way out (by giving her the gun)? Or do you think it is better for her to suffer through her situation in hopes that she will overcome it?
That being said, I think OP reflects the choices that would have been morally acceptable pre-apocalypse (Well, all except for chopping off the teachers leg). The problem with that mindset is that zombies and survival are the driving forces behind most of the situations we find ourselves in, so it's almost impossible to separate our choices from survival reasoning.
Of course, that's the kinda the point: the decision point with Irene would've been more cleanly contrasted as a "moral" choice in that regard if it were a choice between mercy-killing her yourself, or simply leaving her to die on her own. The intended motivation behind that choice (whether you let people give up hope or not) would've been maintained. Hell, Irene herself brings up the option of having you do the deed, we're just not allowed to exercise it. In the case of Irene's character, it potentially makes more sense too, due to how certain Christian denominations view suicide.
It's just that as the choice is presented, the potential risk to the group is too great. I could justify using a round so somebody didn't have to suffer. Giving them the weapon itself, especially when it's the only gun we have? I'd need to be the one that takes a bullet in the head before I'd think it was anything other than a horrible idea.