Interesting. I don't consider sparing either of the brothers to be part of saving humanity or being a good guy, but rather being unwilling to stand out from others and do what's right when they won't. Saving humanity in that situation was standing against the St Johns, against how they preyed on other people, and saying that even though there are no cops, no justice system, that people cannot prey on each other. For that, and to ensure the brothers could never harm anyone again, Lee killed them.
I regretted that Clem saw it done, but not that she knew it happened. I knew people might judge Lee as a murderer, but everyone needed to see that there is no civilization to protect humanity, and that it's up to each person to take responsibility for protecting it. It's wrong to simply do nothing but watch humanity end, and it's wrong to abandon humanity and join the St Johns and Crawfords of the world.
Imagine if you had let the brothers live and the farm wasn't destroyed. Would you have still thought you were being a good guy if the St Johns had lived to lure in and kill more people? Assuming the farm hadn't been wiped out and the St Johns could have still lived there, how would you have punished them or would you have simply left, not caring what they did in the future? Would you have brought the St Johns along to keep an eye on them since you can't kill them but you also can't leave them alone to hurt more people? Would you trust your life to them when zombies attack your group?
It's interesting that people value the old world moral that killing is always wrong ... when that moral was designed for a world with law and order and a justice system, where people could be dealt with in meaningful ways besides forgiveness or death.
Still, maybe I'm wrong. Could you have dealt with the St Johns in a way consistent with old world morality and humanity?
I don't know, there are a lot of possibilities around this. Assuming Lee spares both brothers but the walkers couldn't get into the farm, Danny was still badly wounded and stuck in the trap and unless Andy had good medical skills it would be just a matter of time before he died of blood loss. And then there are the bandits, they seemed pretty focused on raiding the farm after they found out they had been fed with human meat, so it's very likely they wouldn't leave the remaining St John's alone until they got their revenge.
In the events of Danny surviving, he and Andy would have to abandon the farm eventually because I doubt they were going to survive there much longer having to worry about bandits and walkers. And if they decided on pursuing revenge as well they're only two people against an armed group on a fortified place.
And that question is very tricky.. I don't know how you could deal with them based on the old world's morality and justice system, but I would have probably just have left them behind. If I had to deal with the consequences later on, then so be it. And I see how flawed that is because they could just keep eating people... but keep them in a prison and there's the constant threat of their escape. Killing them is by far the easiest way out of this, but is it wrong? Is it right? Is allowing their cannibalism to possibly continue so wrong? They're trying to survive like everyone else. I don't think there's a correct answer to that. Each person is gonna deal with those situations the way they see fit for their morality.
These discussions do make me think about the concept of humanity and justice on a world gone to hell. It'd definitely be interesting if Telltale tried to push the player into doing darker things in order to survive. This is a very interesting thread
I just rereaded my first post again, I wrote something extremely weird and confusing (I should stay away from Internet forums do late, I just smash my head to the keyboard and post it afterwards lol). I didn't mean that killing is bad. Actually... killing IS bad, sometimes, there's just no other choice. There will be some point <<in a ZA>> where we all will have to kill someone, not just to survive (or at least not directly). With "I'd like to die as the guy I was before the zombie outbreak", I meant that I wouldn't want killing (or looting, leaving someone behind, etc..) to change me as a human being.
Rick, in the comics, was wondering if he was a bad guy because of the things he had done. That was enough proof to show that he wasn't a bad guy. Evil people break rules just because they can, they like doing it because it makes them feel better with themselves. The governor, in example, actually enjoyed killing foreigns. (the "TVs" he had are enough proof of this).
I just spared the Brothers because they were no threat anymore, the chances of them surviving were really low, maybe if the farm wasn't getting overrun I would have done something else.
Going a little offtopic... I'm going to take a shower, I'm still sort of asleep, I don't want to post more blurry messages I will have to explain again later
i often turn up the contrast for grey area issues (if you get what i mean) and theorise the logical extreme of any thing, the logical extreme of killing the st johns is to kill anybody that could possibly be a threat (sort of crawford like) so when taken to the logical extreme that is clearly wrong, but the logical extreme of sparing their life, locking them up and caring for them is to lock any threat in a prison and care for them, its clearly not a great idea but it isn't as morally wrong as killing them all.
also it would be prison for rehabilitation, of the two brothers Andrew had the most potential to snap out of it and realise what he had done to survive and become an asset rather than a threat, so in conclusion the prison option would be a bit harder but it is the best of two bad choices and has the potential to help you in the long run but make it a bit harder in the short term.
even in medieval England you had to pay to go to prison (pay the jailer/gaoler) and if you had no money you had to work for it, it is how it should work really, why should criminals get free food and a roof over their heads when innocent people have to pay (this is more related to now rather than a ZA)
I just rereaded my first post again, I wrote something extremely weird and confusing (I should stay away from Internet forums do late, I just smash my head to the keyboard and post it afterwards lol). I didn't mean that killing is bad. Actually... killing IS bad, sometimes, there's just no other choice. There will be some point <<in a ZA>> where we all will have to kill someone, not just to survive (or at least not directly). With "I'd like to die as the guy I was before the zombie outbreak", I meant that I wouldn't want killing (or looting, leaving someone behind, etc..) to change me as a human being.
Rick, in the comics, was wondering if he was a bad guy because of the things he had done. That was enough proof to show that he wasn't a bad guy. Evil people break rules just because they can, they like doing it because it makes them feel better with themselves. The governor, in example, actually enjoyed killing foreigns. (the "TVs" he had are enough proof of this).
I just spared the Brothers because they were no threat anymore, the chances of them surviving were really low, maybe if the farm wasn't getting overrun I would have done something else.
Yes, that's what I was trying to say (I kinda suck at expressing myself) when I said I was trying to retain my humanity! I don't want the ZA to change me (or in that case, Lee) as a human being, I want everyone to remember him as the guy who died without giving in to the temptation of making dark decisions (most of the time, at least). Wheter that's good or bad, it's up to debate.
Yes, that's what I was trying to say (I kinda suck at expressing myself) when I said I was trying to retain my humanity! I don't want the ZA to change me (or in that case, Lee) as a human being, I want everyone to remember him as the guy who died without giving in to the temptation of making dark decisions (most of the time, at least). Wheter that's good or bad, it's up to debate.
Have you ever had a moment when you questioned if you were a bad guy? I think TellTale should try to push players towards those moments and have them questioning themselves on that level. That's why I'm advocating it get darker.
Like I said, I think it would have been great if Andy killed a group member if you let him live. That would have been smart.
Have you ever had a moment when you questioned if you were a bad guy? I think TellTale should try to push players towards those moments and have them questioning themselves on that level. That's why I'm advocating it get darker.
Like I said, I think it would have been great if Andy killed a group member if you let him live. That would have been smart.
but then it would be like you get a reward for killing people, i don't know whether that would make me feel bad because i would have saved a life by killing someone
but then it would be like you get a reward for killing people, i don't know whether that would make me feel bad because i would have saved a life by killing someone
It seems like a no win situation to me.
On one hand, you kill somebody and have to live with people looking at you like a murderer and distrusting you potentially, especially Clem. That's hard. Even if you saved someone's life.
Then again, you let him live and you lose someone you and other's care about. Then you feel guilty for that. His life wasn't worth whomever's he took. Like, if he killed Carley that would be devastating. You let him live and lost someone you care for and you have to live with that.
On one hand, you kill somebody and have to live with people looking at you like a murderer and distrusting you potentially, especially Clem. That's hard. Even if you saved someone's life.
Then again, you let him live and you lose someone you and other's care about. Then you feel guilty for that. His life wasn't worth whomever's he took. Like, if he killed Carley that would be devastating. You let him live and lost someone you care for and you have to live with that.
soldiers kill people to save lives and i believe they are good people, so really you could look at it as win win, because on one hand you don't kill somebody and are merciful (a good thing) and on the other hand you kill someone and save lives (a good thing)
soldiers kill people to save lives and i believe they are good people, so really you could look at it as win win, because on one hand you don't kill somebody and are merciful (a good thing) and on the other hand you kill someone and save lives (a good thing)
Soldiers come back with serious trauma. The suicide rate is crazy. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is common. Killing somebody, even if you think it's for a good cause, is never easy on the mind.
And losing somebody is just as hard.
It's a game so I don't think it will ever get that serious.
I guess the only way to know how people would feel is to have them go through it.
Soldiers come back with serious trauma. The suicide rate is crazy. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is common. Killing somebody, even if you think it's for a good cause, is never easy on the mind.
And losing somebody is just as hard.
It's a game so I don't think it will ever get that serious.
I guess the only way to know how people would feel is to have them go through it.
they train soldiers differently now, they used to emphasise the importance of killing bad people ( but that just makes people wonder if they were bad people) now they emphasise saving lives, that way even killing a good person but for a good reason is a lot easier to live with
On one hand, you kill somebody and have to live with people looking at you like a murderer and distrusting you potentially, especially Clem. That's hard. Even if you saved someone's life.
Then again, you let him live and you lose someone you and other's care about. Then you feel guilty for that. His life wasn't worth whomever's he took. Like, if he killed Carley that would be devastating. You let him live and lost someone you care for and you have to live with that.
I get what you mean, I wish Carley/Dough got killed by Andy here, rather than having Lilly shoot her/him, if they were going to die anyways. Like, Andy takes you by surprise if you dont kill him, and will throw her/him to the electric fence, and the only way to stop him is to shoot him in the head; then, the "RV Lilly accident" could have taken place later in game, killing Carley/Doug, if you saved them from Andy in the earlier episode.. Just an example, anyway, I think it's too late for TT to let that happen this season, anyway
I have to wonder whether leaving them to be eaten and reanimated as zombies is really more merciful than killing them right there. Granted, you don't kill Danny through the brain so he will probably be stuck to that hay pile forever. Is it crueler to let Andy be turned by his own walker mother? Or are the lives of the living not really our choice to decide whether they live or die? I think that, as mentioned, we can't use an old world morality in this new world. That is why they had to die and that is why I also killed Ben (and would've left Lily but I mostly took her to see what would happen lol)
Comments
I don't know, there are a lot of possibilities around this. Assuming Lee spares both brothers but the walkers couldn't get into the farm, Danny was still badly wounded and stuck in the trap and unless Andy had good medical skills it would be just a matter of time before he died of blood loss. And then there are the bandits, they seemed pretty focused on raiding the farm after they found out they had been fed with human meat, so it's very likely they wouldn't leave the remaining St John's alone until they got their revenge.
In the events of Danny surviving, he and Andy would have to abandon the farm eventually because I doubt they were going to survive there much longer having to worry about bandits and walkers. And if they decided on pursuing revenge as well they're only two people against an armed group on a fortified place.
And that question is very tricky.. I don't know how you could deal with them based on the old world's morality and justice system, but I would have probably just have left them behind. If I had to deal with the consequences later on, then so be it. And I see how flawed that is because they could just keep eating people... but keep them in a prison and there's the constant threat of their escape. Killing them is by far the easiest way out of this, but is it wrong? Is it right? Is allowing their cannibalism to possibly continue so wrong? They're trying to survive like everyone else. I don't think there's a correct answer to that. Each person is gonna deal with those situations the way they see fit for their morality.
These discussions do make me think about the concept of humanity and justice on a world gone to hell. It'd definitely be interesting if Telltale tried to push the player into doing darker things in order to survive. This is a very interesting thread
Rick, in the comics, was wondering if he was a bad guy because of the things he had done. That was enough proof to show that he wasn't a bad guy. Evil people break rules just because they can, they like doing it because it makes them feel better with themselves. The governor, in example, actually enjoyed killing foreigns. (the "TVs" he had are enough proof of this).
I just spared the Brothers because they were no threat anymore, the chances of them surviving were really low, maybe if the farm wasn't getting overrun I would have done something else.
Going a little offtopic... I'm going to take a shower, I'm still sort of asleep, I don't want to post more blurry messages I will have to explain again later
also it would be prison for rehabilitation, of the two brothers Andrew had the most potential to snap out of it and realise what he had done to survive and become an asset rather than a threat, so in conclusion the prison option would be a bit harder but it is the best of two bad choices and has the potential to help you in the long run but make it a bit harder in the short term.
or made slaves or sent to the collasium/gladiator arena...and yeah they actually did have 'prison cell like places to hold the aforementioned.
Yes, that's what I was trying to say (I kinda suck at expressing myself) when I said I was trying to retain my humanity! I don't want the ZA to change me (or in that case, Lee) as a human being, I want everyone to remember him as the guy who died without giving in to the temptation of making dark decisions (most of the time, at least). Wheter that's good or bad, it's up to debate.
Have you ever had a moment when you questioned if you were a bad guy? I think TellTale should try to push players towards those moments and have them questioning themselves on that level. That's why I'm advocating it get darker.
Like I said, I think it would have been great if Andy killed a group member if you let him live. That would have been smart.
but then it would be like you get a reward for killing people, i don't know whether that would make me feel bad because i would have saved a life by killing someone
It seems like a no win situation to me.
On one hand, you kill somebody and have to live with people looking at you like a murderer and distrusting you potentially, especially Clem. That's hard. Even if you saved someone's life.
Then again, you let him live and you lose someone you and other's care about. Then you feel guilty for that. His life wasn't worth whomever's he took. Like, if he killed Carley that would be devastating. You let him live and lost someone you care for and you have to live with that.
soldiers kill people to save lives and i believe they are good people, so really you could look at it as win win, because on one hand you don't kill somebody and are merciful (a good thing) and on the other hand you kill someone and save lives (a good thing)
Soldiers come back with serious trauma. The suicide rate is crazy. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is common. Killing somebody, even if you think it's for a good cause, is never easy on the mind.
And losing somebody is just as hard.
It's a game so I don't think it will ever get that serious.
I guess the only way to know how people would feel is to have them go through it.
they train soldiers differently now, they used to emphasise the importance of killing bad people ( but that just makes people wonder if they were bad people) now they emphasise saving lives, that way even killing a good person but for a good reason is a lot easier to live with
I get what you mean, I wish Carley/Dough got killed by Andy here, rather than having Lilly shoot her/him, if they were going to die anyways. Like, Andy takes you by surprise if you dont kill him, and will throw her/him to the electric fence, and the only way to stop him is to shoot him in the head; then, the "RV Lilly accident" could have taken place later in game, killing Carley/Doug, if you saved them from Andy in the earlier episode.. Just an example, anyway, I think it's too late for TT to let that happen this season, anyway