Playing the game the 1st time around, I sided with Kenny and as Lee, helped Kenny in taking Larry out.
I didn't want to, but after seeing how quickly Ben's dead classmate turned into a walker and try to eat Katja, I didn't feel there was any choice.
When Danny was caught in the trap, I accidently ran him threw with the pitchfork, not realizing that throwing it into the hay bail was also an option.
If I'd had known that, I would have spared him.
After having gotten the upper hand against Andy and after having Lee landa few sharp punches, I not only refused to beat him to a bloody pulp, but I walked away and left him to his fate, refusing to let him provoke me into finishing him.
After accidentally having Lee kill Danny, I would not do the same to Andy.
With Larry, Danny, and Brenda being bitten by Mark who'd reanimated as a walker, I felt enough damage had already been done.
And I simply didn't want to do anymore harm.
The first time I played the game, I played according how my conscious would dictate.
Killing, especially someone who is not only unarmed but also injured, is not something I could do.
Yes, the St Johns were cold-blooded murderers, but I decided I wasn't going to become like them.
Even when it came down to Jolene, who had a crossbow, I tried every thing I could to end it peacefully.
Like I said before Danny was an accident.
I looked for any other place I could, but nothing showed up on screen, so I figured it was the only option the game was giving me.
When it came to Duck, I had Lee volunteer to euthanize him.
My conscious couldn't allow me to let either of his parents to have to do such a thing for their own kid.
As Lee said, " No parent should have to do something like that."
Same thing with the zombified boy in the attic.
When seeing how hard it was for Kenny to do it, I had Lee spare him.
And when it came down to either saving Ben or letting him drop from the bell tower, even though he'd had inadvertently caused the death of Kenny's wife and son, as well as Brie back in the classroom, having seen how truly remorseful he was, I couldn't let him die.
And when Ben had fallen from the stairwell and suffered a fatal injury, I not only tried to save him, but also refused to abandon Kenny.
And when it came down to the guy who kidnapped Clementine, even though I killed him in the fight, I refused to let him come back as a walker.
That to me, was a fate that even he didn't deserve.
And finally when it came to either having Clementine euthanize Lee, or leave him, I had her take Lee out.
To me, I gave the right example with Duck, I felt that she needed to learn to do the right thing even though it's not always easy and sometimes even painful.
Same I tried to save Larry, Let Lily in RV and saved Ben. But I Killed the two ST Johns brothers, and I believe anyone who didn't made a bad c… morehoice. Even if Clem was watching it shouldn't matter, the ST Johns know where you live, they will be out for vengeance if they are allowed to live on top of that they deserve to die before they kill more innocents and for the ones they already killed. Most of the decisions in the game can be seen from two point of views but this is one of the decisions where I believe there realistically is only one right choice and thats to kill them both
No question, they HAD to die. Let one of them stay alive since his mom is dead anyway? What kind of reasoning is that? You think a freaking cannibal is suddenly going to go straight? The Stranger lost his loved ones too, yet that didn't mean he stopped being a threat. There is no jail system, you have two choices. Let them go, knowing how many people they murdered and ate, and know that they could/WOULD do this again, or kill them.
So why did I spare both of them? Simple, I didn't need to at the time. Killing them would have been an act of anger against them. I didn't want to do it like that. My intention, originally, was to see what the group would do after we had captured them. I was greatly surprised to see the zombies overrun the farm, which meant they were both dead anyway. Since they were going to die, despite my letting them live, I decided that was fine and I continued. Make no mistake though, I was going to kill them, I just didn't want it to be because my emotions had gotten away from me. To make it an execution, rather then murder.
The way that went down leaves a sour taste because I can't help but feel that having the zombies kill them off was a copout. It felt like a way to keep your hands clean of doing the dirty work while karma does the deed instead. Much like the car incident later on lets you choose to not take the food from the car and still get fed. You are basically saying you'd rather starve to death then steal that food but after the others carry the food back to the base, your character suddenly thinks it's no longer immoral to eat it. Funny how that works. I didn't like how either choice worked out like that. Very hypocritical. In the end though, I decided that I still didn't need to kill the John Brothers because, killing them implies that you are emotionally out of control. Which I didn't want to be. It's also important that I didn't decide to leave them alive, as the zombies showed up before the group left.
If the zombies hadn't killed the John Brothers and the group had just walked away, leaving them, I would have rebooted to a previous save and slaughtered them instead though.
I left both of the St. John Brothers alive. The reason was Clem. Lee was responsible for her. And she looked up to Lee and my thought was that everything Lee does would influence her moral courage. Danny was caught in the trap and was not a danger any more. To kill a Walker or somebody attacking Lee is defense. Kill a person trapped who can´t fight back is murder. That's the reason i left him alive. That he maybe will die nonetheless (by Walkers or simply by starving) was enough revenge for Mark for me. The same reason for Andy. He was already beaten. The whole group was there and killing him, wasn´t necessary any more. He was a broken man.
The decision felt right to me, when Lee spoke to Clem afterwards and told her, that they did not kill the St. John Brothers and that Lee is not sure about their fate (maybe dead, maybe alive) und Clem reacted positive. I would do it the same way again.
(if there are mistakes in this text, forgive me. english is not my native language.)
We as humans generally use the actions of others as an excuse or absolution of guilt justifying our actions. I personally think that not taking the food isn't really a copout even though you get fed in the end and I agree had it not been taken then likely they would have starved. I bet that just like in real life because Lee didn't directly do it (if he doesn't want to take the food) means that he is excused from bad parts of that action kinda like saying "Sure I ate it but atleast I didn't steal it from that car like Kenny did".
Our morals are very quick to change depending on what we think the group's reaction will be so we like to make that moral grey someone else's problem and then call them out if we get called out for something related to it taking a moral high ground. A lecturer on ethics did that to us once using an impossible situation in which peoples lives are at stake that started off with more people being witness to your actions down to no one seeing. You would be amazed how peoples actions changed dramatically when they knew they could get away without anyone knowing.
The St. John's Brothers had to die.
No question, they HAD to die. Let one of them stay alive since his mom is dead anyway? What kind of rea… moresoning is that? You think a freaking cannibal is suddenly going to go straight? The Stranger lost his loved ones too, yet that didn't mean he stopped being a threat. There is no jail system, you have two choices. Let them go, knowing how many people they murdered and ate, and know that they could/WOULD do this again, or kill them.
So why did I spare both of them? Simple, I didn't need to at the time. Killing them would have been an act of anger against them. I didn't want to do it like that. My intention, originally, was to see what the group would do after we had captured them. I was greatly surprised to see the zombies overrun the farm, which meant they were both dead anyway. Since they were going to die, despite my letting them live, I decided that was fine and I continued. Make no mistake though, I … [view original content]
Playing the game the 1st time around, I sided with Kenny and as Lee, helped Kenny in taking Larry out.
I didn't want to, but after seeing how… more quickly Ben's dead classmate turned into a walker and try to eat Katja, I didn't feel there was any choice.
When Danny was caught in the trap, I accidently ran him threw with the pitchfork, not realizing that throwing it into the hay bail was also an option.
If I'd had known that, I would have spared him.
After having gotten the upper hand against Andy and after having Lee landa few sharp punches, I not only refused to beat him to a bloody pulp, but I walked away and left him to his fate, refusing to let him provoke me into finishing him.
After accidentally having Lee kill Danny, I would not do the same to Andy.
With Larry, Danny, and Brenda being bitten by Mark who'd reanimated as a walker, I felt enough damage had already been done.
And I simply didn't want to do anymore harm.
The first time … [view original content]
Phycology has always been such a fascinating subject for me. While I understand the point you are making, that only goes so far. I can understand a person ignoring someone stealing. I wouldn't be surprised if they help cover up the crime. Maybe share the goods it with the thief, if it was something like a music player and they wanted to listen to it together. However, actually taking the stolen goods is another thing altogether.
I will admit that by eating the stolen food, you still are not as bad as the people that took it. I also think it's an excellent point you made that it's much easier to steal from an empty car then one with a person still in it. I think it would have been a facinating moral dilemma had there actually been someone inside the car and the rest decided to tie up or kill that person in order to get the food. That way you are deciding to join in or not. I will admit in such a case, I am not sure I would join in, even though I needed that food. Yet I would probably eat it afterwards... So that would be a situation that would weigh heavily on my conscious and I'm not sure at all on how I would be able to deal with it. I suppose it would come down to the fact that even though I wouldn't kill to get the food, once the guy is dead, there is no point in wasting it. It's a really tough call though. On the other hand, since the car WAS empty, we have no idea if the previous owners are even still alive or if they could come back to get it. Leaving food to rot when you could use it RIGHT NOW is not acceptable to me.
Still, the point is raised that Lee would have walked away had the 'no' vote carried the day. So, it's not like he wasn't willing to stand behind his (stupid) choice. That deserves some respect. However, after the group decided to do it anyway, you had to make another choice. Imagining that I did, in fact, vote to not take the food, I can do two things.
I can either refuse to eat it and feel moral about my decision, as I slowly die, or eat with the rest of the group, which would mean I changed my mind and agreed with the decision. The SECOND I did that, then the excuse of, "at least I didn't steal it" goes out the window. Eating that food is admitting that you made an error in judgement. To imagine yourself as being better then the others is insulting. If I eat the food then I as good as stole it and I'm not going to pretend otherwise or pass the buck off to others. Nor shall I pretend that I maintain some sort of lily white morality. I would never think myself as being even slightly better then those that stole the food, had I decided not to partake in the actual crime.
One good example of people that are willing to die for their (stupid) beliefs is those that refuse to take blood transfusions. They understand that even if they die, they can't take the transfusion because it would ruin their belief system. They would have to admit they were wrong. On the other hand, if they were FORCED to do this, then it's not really their fault, so they can continue with their same values.
We as humans generally use the actions of others as an excuse or absolution of guilt justifying our actions. I personally think that not takin… moreg the food isn't really a copout even though you get fed in the end and I agree had it not been taken then likely they would have starved. I bet that just like in real life because Lee didn't directly do it (if he doesn't want to take the food) means that he is excused from bad parts of that action kinda like saying "Sure I ate it but atleast I didn't steal it from that car like Kenny did".
Our morals are very quick to change depending on what we think the group's reaction will be so we like to make that moral grey someone else's problem and then call them out if we get called out for something related to it taking a moral high ground. A lecturer on ethics did that to us once using an impossible situation in which peoples lives are at stake that started off with more people being witness to your actions … [view original content]
You bring up something I always wished had been in the game, someone at the car even if it's just another thief ready to steal the stuff that was there with us placed in a position that determines how he dies ie. we kill him, deny him food which kills him anyway or let him have it only to be forced out of desperation to take it or something similar. After the Dairy that would really put a strain on the choice. Personally if someone was there I would have killed him and taken the stuff but I know that's because I was so damn angry at that whole dairy thing that I wasn't exactly thinking as rationally as I should have. I know I would have felt guilty afterwards but given how I play games I wouldn't reload and would be stuck with that horrible choice.
I think what hits home most is what you say about him seemingly standing behind his decision. It happens in real life many times over (your blood transfusion story is but one) but for the context of the game it's that part that kinda makes it feel forced. Most people I know that have a strong viewpoint tend not to back out in the next 5 min just because the situation changed slightly (The rest of the group taking the food anyway) so it doesn't feel that genuine. Perhaps if that part were slightly different in that Lee didn't seem as determined or seemed more conflicted it would have played better to the scene when the rest of the group takes the food and Lee joins in.
I agree with what you say about changing your mind and agreeing with a decision that previously you didn't agree on is an admission of error but I know people that I have spoken to that still believe they are better than others even if they participated in the action. Yes it is insulting but all they require is what they believe to be some appropriate justification. My decision to save Larry was based on my decision to stand up for Duck, I couldn't be hypocritical even though in all likelihood I would be dead when Larry ripped me apart.
A person I know who is about 10 years older than my parents used her age and the way that we were brought up to extract information from us, putting a kid into a situation in which they know one way or another they will be punished to me is just as good as torture, meanwhile she would always say that we willingly told her everything straight to my parents face. Some people are just like that.
Phycology has always been such a fascinating subject for me. While I understand the point you are making, that only goes so far. I can underst… moreand a person ignoring someone stealing. I wouldn't be surprised if they help cover up the crime. Maybe share the goods it with the thief, if it was something like a music player and they wanted to listen to it together. However, actually taking the stolen goods is another thing altogether.
I will admit that by eating the stolen food, you still are not as bad as the people that took it. I also think it's an excellent point you made that it's much easier to steal from an empty car then one with a person still in it. I think it would have been a facinating moral dilemma had there actually been someone inside the car and the rest decided to tie up or kill that person in order to get the food. That way you are deciding to join in or not. I will admit in such a case, I am not sure I would join in, even though … [view original content]
I'm not sure how Duck and Larry's situations are the same. Duck wasn't bitten, and if he was bitten then he still wasn't dead yet, so he's not an immediate risk. Even if he WAS an immediate risk the group had various weapons to kill him, a fair amount of space to manouver and isolate him, and, even without all that, they are all bigger and stronger then Duck.
In short, risk was minimal and there was no need to kick him out of the building before anyone could confirm that he was bitten or not.
Larry was dead. Whether or not Lilly could bring him back was beside the point. The guy wasn't breathing anymore. They were in a small room, no weapons, trapped. There was no way to isolate him so that only people that wanted to risk their lives saving him would need to do so. EVERYONE was at risk, including Clementine. Larry was bigger and stronger then the rest of them. If he turned, they were all dead.
I won't say I really stood up for Duck, because I preferred to take a more neutral position but keeping Larry alive was an unacceptable risk for me and I don't see why it would be hypocritical to let Duck stay around for a bit vs. killing Larry off immediately after we knew he had stopped breathing.
You bring up something I always wished had been in the game, someone at the car even if it's just another thief ready to steal the stuff that … morewas there with us placed in a position that determines how he dies ie. we kill him, deny him food which kills him anyway or let him have it only to be forced out of desperation to take it or something similar. After the Dairy that would really put a strain on the choice. Personally if someone was there I would have killed him and taken the stuff but I know that's because I was so damn angry at that whole dairy thing that I wasn't exactly thinking as rationally as I should have. I know I would have felt guilty afterwards but given how I play games I wouldn't reload and would be stuck with that horrible choice.
I think what hits home most is what you say about him seemingly standing behind his decision. It happens in real life many times over (your blood transfusion story is but one) but for the context of… [view original content]
You have to remember that what I said was from my point of view, like morals hypocrisy really is based on what we believe. In my mind the likelihood that Larry was dead anyway was high, most people don't easily survive a heart attack and as you said with minimal area to move and being trapped the danger was much more present. I disagree on weapons, anything can be a weapon if you really need it to be but that's beside the point that the danger and risk were huge. Duck clearly didn't pose as big a danger or threat but I know I can't say for certain whether he was actually bitten or not, it was very likely that he was fine but it can't be guaranteed. Ideally I would have prepared to kill Larry but not given up on saving him so trying to minimise the risk. Guess that makes me a pretty big hypocrite.
My reasoning for saying they are the same is how do you approach the situation that someone might turn on you? As you pointed out it seems you would take it as it comes based maybe on the reality of the situation (I don't know your mind so just speculating here), which probably would mean you might live longer, whereas I came at it as when I get bitten how will my actions determine what the group will do to me. It would have been interesting if that choice came back to haunt your character with your arm later on. Something like that they might have been thinking to kill you instead of chopping off the arm while maybe Christa argued that it's stupid and cutting the arm off is better. I suppose I try to be more like Dale, wanting to not be what a person has to be to actually survive, and if you've read the comic or watched the TV series you know what that gets you.
You know all this talk and I think that if it were really me I have no idea what I would do. It's nice to be rational but to be in a real life or death situation it's likely I wouldn't act anything like what I think I would. Speaking of interesting outcomes that could have been explored later on or a different situation in the game what would you have liked to see beside someone at the car?
I'm not sure how Duck and Larry's situations are the same. Duck wasn't bitten, and if he was bitten then he still wasn't dead yet, so he's not… more an immediate risk. Even if he WAS an immediate risk the group had various weapons to kill him, a fair amount of space to manouver and isolate him, and, even without all that, they are all bigger and stronger then Duck.
In short, risk was minimal and there was no need to kick him out of the building before anyone could confirm that he was bitten or not.
Larry was dead. Whether or not Lilly could bring him back was beside the point. The guy wasn't breathing anymore. They were in a small room, no weapons, trapped. There was no way to isolate him so that only people that wanted to risk their lives saving him would need to do so. EVERYONE was at risk, including Clementine. Larry was bigger and stronger then the rest of them. If he turned, they were all dead.
I won't say I really stood up for Duck, beca… [view original content]
I spared them both. At first, I didn't know sparing Danny was an option, but then I realized you could throw the pitchfork at the haysack. I was relieved to know Clem was watching (I didn't want her to see any more murder that day). Then with Andy, I was initially happy to beat the living shit out of him, but then I saw the rest of the survivors looking at me and stopped. It kind of felt like I was on national TV, I just couldn't keep going and was so sick of all the violence...
Interesting you should say "deserve to die" when you're decision to kill still takes life like the brothers did, but of course they were well aware that they were murdering people, even if they attempted a half-assed justification of 'new rules'. Also, a modified trap is very suspicious, and I enjoy these games all the more because of how Telltale adds those subtle and unsettling details now and then.
To me it was the 'zombie apocalypse' context of retributive justice because not killing them would leave a risk of them committing the same acts on someone else. And really, showing mercy to cannibals? What would Clem think of that? The other adults understood, but I don't think a child would understand that future clemency can be manipulated, as in, not everyone plays fair, and some few people don't give a fuck about moral justifications at all.
Same I tried to save Larry, Let Lily in RV and saved Ben. But I Killed the two ST Johns brothers, and I believe anyone who didn't made a bad c… morehoice. Even if Clem was watching it shouldn't matter, the ST Johns know where you live, they will be out for vengeance if they are allowed to live on top of that they deserve to die before they kill more innocents and for the ones they already killed. Most of the decisions in the game can be seen from two point of views but this is one of the decisions where I believe there realistically is only one right choice and thats to kill them both
Huh, I like the idea of them discussing killing him instead of just chopping his arm off. Even if it's just a brief thought, it would be an appropriate thought to make, given the situation.
Interesting situations? Hmm.
None come to mind. I think what I'd like most is more variations in the NPC conversations.
My favorite morality game was ME1 and it had plenty of that while playing. A big reason was because of the background selections. I felt that being able to choose the gender, background and reason for fame really individualized a playthrough. There were lots of mentions about those early choices by various NPC. You also were able to identify yourself as a Spector or Terran Commander and the meetings with the Council where I gave my reports were ALWAYS interesting, as I justified my actions to them.
In ME2 the background played far less and I felt I was being railroaded more, specifically that they forced me to be a loyal backer of the Illusive Man, not allowing me to spy for the Council or anything. I also liked the color coding so you knew Red was a violent choice and blue was peaceful. There have been several times in the Telltale games that I clicked on an option and didn't know it would cause my character to act in the way he did.
So, I suppose the one thing I really would have liked is, not having new morality choices but, to have your choices cause more variations in the NPC reactions. For instance, instead of telling Clem to shoot you or run away. That choice can be decided by the way you acted towards here. Also, longer conversations with branching dialogue choices. In ME2 there was a fascinating argument I had with Mordin over the morality of the plague he inflicted on Krogens. I had the option to argue all that I liked and when it was done I really felt that I had had a satisfying conclusion to it.
You have to remember that what I said was from my point of view, like morals hypocrisy really is based on what we believe. In my mind the like… morelihood that Larry was dead anyway was high, most people don't easily survive a heart attack and as you said with minimal area to move and being trapped the danger was much more present. I disagree on weapons, anything can be a weapon if you really need it to be but that's beside the point that the danger and risk were huge. Duck clearly didn't pose as big a danger or threat but I know I can't say for certain whether he was actually bitten or not, it was very likely that he was fine but it can't be guaranteed. Ideally I would have prepared to kill Larry but not given up on saving him so trying to minimise the risk. Guess that makes me a pretty big hypocrite.
My reasoning for saying they are the same is how do you approach the situation that someone might turn on you? As you pointed out it seems you would … [view original content]
Did you know that you can actually do that with Clem? Apparently choosing not to tell her to shoot you or leave you by letting the timer run out let's her decide based on what she thinks your choices mean, it's something that very few people did according to one of the vids I saw from telltale, think it was a making of. Choosing what you did with the scoia'tael in the witcher was like that for me, it just felt appropriately impactful plus I loved how the villagers sought shelter when it rained. ME1 and 2 did have some good dialogue in it which developed the characters very well.
Some of the response could have been clearer in the tone they were in for walking dead. My first play through when Clem needed to go pee I saw not right now and thought ok a kinda we have more important stuff on now tone and it came out much harsher. Similar with Ben when he confesses on the train, I was taken back by the harshness of what I thought would have been a much less angry response.
For me it would have been interesting to see someone at the car just because of the whole dairy thing. I would have loved more dialogue with Lilly after the Larry incident, she just seemed like such an interesting character even if it didn't change anything later on. The arguing to kill Lee thing I mentioned, I think it would make going alone seem like it was a good idea. In 400 days it would have been interesting if you had to kill Dee by strangling her to keep her quiet, like she was just getting louder and your hand was forced. Would have made the conversation with Leland way more interesting. Last I was hoping that Becca was doing favours for Roman like Molly did with the Doctor so that her and her sisters security was guaranteed. As sick as it is having it come out in the conversation about what she did for Shel before leaving would have been a shocker.
Huh, I like the idea of them discussing killing him instead of just chopping his arm off. Even if it's just a brief thought, it would be an ap… morepropriate thought to make, given the situation.
Interesting situations? Hmm.
None come to mind. I think what I'd like most is more variations in the NPC conversations.
My favorite morality game was ME1 and it had plenty of that while playing. A big reason was because of the background selections. I felt that being able to choose the gender, background and reason for fame really individualized a playthrough. There were lots of mentions about those early choices by various NPC. You also were able to identify yourself as a Spector or Terran Commander and the meetings with the Council where I gave my reports were ALWAYS interesting, as I justified my actions to them.
In ME2 the background played far less and I felt I was being railroaded more, specifically that they forced me to be a loyal backer of… [view original content]
I left both of the St. John Brothers alive. The reason was Clem. Lee was responsible for her. And she looked up to Lee and my thought was that… more everything Lee does would influence her moral courage. Danny was caught in the trap and was not a danger any more. To kill a Walker or somebody attacking Lee is defense. Kill a person trapped who can´t fight back is murder. That's the reason i left him alive. That he maybe will die nonetheless (by Walkers or simply by starving) was enough revenge for Mark for me. The same reason for Andy. He was already beaten. The whole group was there and killing him, wasn´t necessary any more. He was a broken man.
The decision felt right to me, when Lee spoke to Clem afterwards and told her, that they did not kill the St. John Brothers and that Lee is not sure about their fate (maybe dead, maybe alive) und Clem reacted positive. I would do it the same way again.
(if there are mistakes in this text, forgive me. english is not my native language.)
Danny wouldn't have been able to make it out of that trap. They both designed it so that humans couldn't escape. Even if there was some complicated loophole, the walkers would probably kill him before he got out. And if he did, I don't think he would have been able to defend himself on one leg. And Andy probably didn't have the strength to run away. He takes such a beating that it seems like he's exhausted. We saw how quickly the Governor kicked Rick's ass in Season 4, and Andy was just a repeat. Andy probably would have died, and Danny was a write-off the second he stepped on that bear trap.
I didn't know about the sound files, I honestly just thought his "giving his gun a girls name" was hinting that he was a armed forces veteran. IE from the scene from Full Metal Jacket "You will give your rifle a girl's name, because this is the only (insert another word for cat here) you will be getting."
Yeah I would have a gun near but have you heard what he says, "This gun will keep you warmer at night than any girl I ever known" and see him … morestroking it and giving it a name "glad I got to use my girl here". There is one thing to have a gun near you for protection and another to be attracted to an inanimate object.
I killed Danny - that son of a bitch deserved it, he got all mouthy and even before that i was really tempted to put the pitch fork through his head. Andy after i'd slung a few punches into him, he was too pathetic to finish off standing (or kneeling rather) in the rain, and i choose the option to return too the group - he'd had enough and besides i was feeling guilty from clem seeing me kill the other one. I was happy (well not happy but you know what i mean, i can't think of the right word im having a mind block) though when the zombies broke over the fence and presumably ate him, it was poetic justice and i didn't really expect it - i thought once chose to walk away that would be that. The only gripe i had with the choice i made with Danny is that the game guilt tripped me with clem seeing it.
I didn't know about the sound files, I honestly just thought his "giving his gun a girls name" was hinting that he was a armed forces veteran.… more IE from the scene from Full Metal Jacket "You will give your rifle a girl's name, because this is the only (insert another word for cat here) you will be getting."
Comments
Aha and yet Lee's fate is exactly the same however ruthless you are (or aren't) while it's a little irritating I like the moral in that.
I killed both. Ain't nobody messin' with my Clementine. Nobody.
Playing the game the 1st time around, I sided with Kenny and as Lee, helped Kenny in taking Larry out.
I didn't want to, but after seeing how quickly Ben's dead classmate turned into a walker and try to eat Katja, I didn't feel there was any choice.
When Danny was caught in the trap, I accidently ran him threw with the pitchfork, not realizing that throwing it into the hay bail was also an option.
If I'd had known that, I would have spared him.
After having gotten the upper hand against Andy and after having Lee landa few sharp punches, I not only refused to beat him to a bloody pulp, but I walked away and left him to his fate, refusing to let him provoke me into finishing him.
After accidentally having Lee kill Danny, I would not do the same to Andy.
With Larry, Danny, and Brenda being bitten by Mark who'd reanimated as a walker, I felt enough damage had already been done.
And I simply didn't want to do anymore harm.
The first time I played the game, I played according how my conscious would dictate.
Killing, especially someone who is not only unarmed but also injured, is not something I could do.
Yes, the St Johns were cold-blooded murderers, but I decided I wasn't going to become like them.
Even when it came down to Jolene, who had a crossbow, I tried every thing I could to end it peacefully.
Like I said before Danny was an accident.
I looked for any other place I could, but nothing showed up on screen, so I figured it was the only option the game was giving me.
When it came to Duck, I had Lee volunteer to euthanize him.
My conscious couldn't allow me to let either of his parents to have to do such a thing for their own kid.
As Lee said, " No parent should have to do something like that."
Same thing with the zombified boy in the attic.
When seeing how hard it was for Kenny to do it, I had Lee spare him.
And when it came down to either saving Ben or letting him drop from the bell tower, even though he'd had inadvertently caused the death of Kenny's wife and son, as well as Brie back in the classroom, having seen how truly remorseful he was, I couldn't let him die.
And when Ben had fallen from the stairwell and suffered a fatal injury, I not only tried to save him, but also refused to abandon Kenny.
And when it came down to the guy who kidnapped Clementine, even though I killed him in the fight, I refused to let him come back as a walker.
That to me, was a fate that even he didn't deserve.
And finally when it came to either having Clementine euthanize Lee, or leave him, I had her take Lee out.
To me, I gave the right example with Duck, I felt that she needed to learn to do the right thing even though it's not always easy and sometimes even painful.
I agree 100% I did the same exact thing and had the same thoughts as you did.
The St. John's Brothers had to die.
No question, they HAD to die. Let one of them stay alive since his mom is dead anyway? What kind of reasoning is that? You think a freaking cannibal is suddenly going to go straight? The Stranger lost his loved ones too, yet that didn't mean he stopped being a threat. There is no jail system, you have two choices. Let them go, knowing how many people they murdered and ate, and know that they could/WOULD do this again, or kill them.
So why did I spare both of them? Simple, I didn't need to at the time. Killing them would have been an act of anger against them. I didn't want to do it like that. My intention, originally, was to see what the group would do after we had captured them. I was greatly surprised to see the zombies overrun the farm, which meant they were both dead anyway. Since they were going to die, despite my letting them live, I decided that was fine and I continued. Make no mistake though, I was going to kill them, I just didn't want it to be because my emotions had gotten away from me. To make it an execution, rather then murder.
The way that went down leaves a sour taste because I can't help but feel that having the zombies kill them off was a copout. It felt like a way to keep your hands clean of doing the dirty work while karma does the deed instead. Much like the car incident later on lets you choose to not take the food from the car and still get fed. You are basically saying you'd rather starve to death then steal that food but after the others carry the food back to the base, your character suddenly thinks it's no longer immoral to eat it. Funny how that works. I didn't like how either choice worked out like that. Very hypocritical. In the end though, I decided that I still didn't need to kill the John Brothers because, killing them implies that you are emotionally out of control. Which I didn't want to be. It's also important that I didn't decide to leave them alive, as the zombies showed up before the group left.
If the zombies hadn't killed the John Brothers and the group had just walked away, leaving them, I would have rebooted to a previous save and slaughtered them instead though.
I left both of the St. John Brothers alive. The reason was Clem. Lee was responsible for her. And she looked up to Lee and my thought was that everything Lee does would influence her moral courage. Danny was caught in the trap and was not a danger any more. To kill a Walker or somebody attacking Lee is defense. Kill a person trapped who can´t fight back is murder. That's the reason i left him alive. That he maybe will die nonetheless (by Walkers or simply by starving) was enough revenge for Mark for me. The same reason for Andy. He was already beaten. The whole group was there and killing him, wasn´t necessary any more. He was a broken man.
The decision felt right to me, when Lee spoke to Clem afterwards and told her, that they did not kill the St. John Brothers and that Lee is not sure about their fate (maybe dead, maybe alive) und Clem reacted positive. I would do it the same way again.
(if there are mistakes in this text, forgive me. english is not my native language.)
This is NOT how the world works now!
It still works for me this way. :-)
(if your answer was to my message)
We as humans generally use the actions of others as an excuse or absolution of guilt justifying our actions. I personally think that not taking the food isn't really a copout even though you get fed in the end and I agree had it not been taken then likely they would have starved. I bet that just like in real life because Lee didn't directly do it (if he doesn't want to take the food) means that he is excused from bad parts of that action kinda like saying "Sure I ate it but atleast I didn't steal it from that car like Kenny did".
Our morals are very quick to change depending on what we think the group's reaction will be so we like to make that moral grey someone else's problem and then call them out if we get called out for something related to it taking a moral high ground. A lecturer on ethics did that to us once using an impossible situation in which peoples lives are at stake that started off with more people being witness to your actions down to no one seeing. You would be amazed how peoples actions changed dramatically when they knew they could get away without anyone knowing.
I love how so many of my actions are very different to yours and yet much of my reasoning is very similar to yours.
It goes to show, people will up and go mad when they believe their life is over.
clem saw me kill the 1st one. So I let the other live.
Phycology has always been such a fascinating subject for me. While I understand the point you are making, that only goes so far. I can understand a person ignoring someone stealing. I wouldn't be surprised if they help cover up the crime. Maybe share the goods it with the thief, if it was something like a music player and they wanted to listen to it together. However, actually taking the stolen goods is another thing altogether.
I will admit that by eating the stolen food, you still are not as bad as the people that took it. I also think it's an excellent point you made that it's much easier to steal from an empty car then one with a person still in it. I think it would have been a facinating moral dilemma had there actually been someone inside the car and the rest decided to tie up or kill that person in order to get the food. That way you are deciding to join in or not. I will admit in such a case, I am not sure I would join in, even though I needed that food. Yet I would probably eat it afterwards... So that would be a situation that would weigh heavily on my conscious and I'm not sure at all on how I would be able to deal with it. I suppose it would come down to the fact that even though I wouldn't kill to get the food, once the guy is dead, there is no point in wasting it. It's a really tough call though. On the other hand, since the car WAS empty, we have no idea if the previous owners are even still alive or if they could come back to get it. Leaving food to rot when you could use it RIGHT NOW is not acceptable to me.
Still, the point is raised that Lee would have walked away had the 'no' vote carried the day. So, it's not like he wasn't willing to stand behind his (stupid) choice. That deserves some respect. However, after the group decided to do it anyway, you had to make another choice. Imagining that I did, in fact, vote to not take the food, I can do two things.
I can either refuse to eat it and feel moral about my decision, as I slowly die, or eat with the rest of the group, which would mean I changed my mind and agreed with the decision. The SECOND I did that, then the excuse of, "at least I didn't steal it" goes out the window. Eating that food is admitting that you made an error in judgement. To imagine yourself as being better then the others is insulting. If I eat the food then I as good as stole it and I'm not going to pretend otherwise or pass the buck off to others. Nor shall I pretend that I maintain some sort of lily white morality. I would never think myself as being even slightly better then those that stole the food, had I decided not to partake in the actual crime.
One good example of people that are willing to die for their (stupid) beliefs is those that refuse to take blood transfusions. They understand that even if they die, they can't take the transfusion because it would ruin their belief system. They would have to admit they were wrong. On the other hand, if they were FORCED to do this, then it's not really their fault, so they can continue with their same values.
You bring up something I always wished had been in the game, someone at the car even if it's just another thief ready to steal the stuff that was there with us placed in a position that determines how he dies ie. we kill him, deny him food which kills him anyway or let him have it only to be forced out of desperation to take it or something similar. After the Dairy that would really put a strain on the choice. Personally if someone was there I would have killed him and taken the stuff but I know that's because I was so damn angry at that whole dairy thing that I wasn't exactly thinking as rationally as I should have. I know I would have felt guilty afterwards but given how I play games I wouldn't reload and would be stuck with that horrible choice.
I think what hits home most is what you say about him seemingly standing behind his decision. It happens in real life many times over (your blood transfusion story is but one) but for the context of the game it's that part that kinda makes it feel forced. Most people I know that have a strong viewpoint tend not to back out in the next 5 min just because the situation changed slightly (The rest of the group taking the food anyway) so it doesn't feel that genuine. Perhaps if that part were slightly different in that Lee didn't seem as determined or seemed more conflicted it would have played better to the scene when the rest of the group takes the food and Lee joins in.
I agree with what you say about changing your mind and agreeing with a decision that previously you didn't agree on is an admission of error but I know people that I have spoken to that still believe they are better than others even if they participated in the action. Yes it is insulting but all they require is what they believe to be some appropriate justification. My decision to save Larry was based on my decision to stand up for Duck, I couldn't be hypocritical even though in all likelihood I would be dead when Larry ripped me apart.
A person I know who is about 10 years older than my parents used her age and the way that we were brought up to extract information from us, putting a kid into a situation in which they know one way or another they will be punished to me is just as good as torture, meanwhile she would always say that we willingly told her everything straight to my parents face. Some people are just like that.
I stabbed the one brother with a pitchfork in the barn.
The second one I beat the hell out of, and left him for dead.
In my opinion there was no need to kill him. I won, he was beaten, and he got what he deserved.
i chose to spare both.
I'm not sure how Duck and Larry's situations are the same. Duck wasn't bitten, and if he was bitten then he still wasn't dead yet, so he's not an immediate risk. Even if he WAS an immediate risk the group had various weapons to kill him, a fair amount of space to manouver and isolate him, and, even without all that, they are all bigger and stronger then Duck.
In short, risk was minimal and there was no need to kick him out of the building before anyone could confirm that he was bitten or not.
Larry was dead. Whether or not Lilly could bring him back was beside the point. The guy wasn't breathing anymore. They were in a small room, no weapons, trapped. There was no way to isolate him so that only people that wanted to risk their lives saving him would need to do so. EVERYONE was at risk, including Clementine. Larry was bigger and stronger then the rest of them. If he turned, they were all dead.
I won't say I really stood up for Duck, because I preferred to take a more neutral position but keeping Larry alive was an unacceptable risk for me and I don't see why it would be hypocritical to let Duck stay around for a bit vs. killing Larry off immediately after we knew he had stopped breathing.
You have to remember that what I said was from my point of view, like morals hypocrisy really is based on what we believe. In my mind the likelihood that Larry was dead anyway was high, most people don't easily survive a heart attack and as you said with minimal area to move and being trapped the danger was much more present. I disagree on weapons, anything can be a weapon if you really need it to be but that's beside the point that the danger and risk were huge. Duck clearly didn't pose as big a danger or threat but I know I can't say for certain whether he was actually bitten or not, it was very likely that he was fine but it can't be guaranteed. Ideally I would have prepared to kill Larry but not given up on saving him so trying to minimise the risk. Guess that makes me a pretty big hypocrite.
My reasoning for saying they are the same is how do you approach the situation that someone might turn on you? As you pointed out it seems you would take it as it comes based maybe on the reality of the situation (I don't know your mind so just speculating here), which probably would mean you might live longer, whereas I came at it as when I get bitten how will my actions determine what the group will do to me. It would have been interesting if that choice came back to haunt your character with your arm later on. Something like that they might have been thinking to kill you instead of chopping off the arm while maybe Christa argued that it's stupid and cutting the arm off is better. I suppose I try to be more like Dale, wanting to not be what a person has to be to actually survive, and if you've read the comic or watched the TV series you know what that gets you.
You know all this talk and I think that if it were really me I have no idea what I would do. It's nice to be rational but to be in a real life or death situation it's likely I wouldn't act anything like what I think I would. Speaking of interesting outcomes that could have been explored later on or a different situation in the game what would you have liked to see beside someone at the car?
I spared them both. At first, I didn't know sparing Danny was an option, but then I realized you could throw the pitchfork at the haysack. I was relieved to know Clem was watching (I didn't want her to see any more murder that day). Then with Andy, I was initially happy to beat the living shit out of him, but then I saw the rest of the survivors looking at me and stopped. It kind of felt like I was on national TV, I just couldn't keep going and was so sick of all the violence...
Interesting you should say "deserve to die" when you're decision to kill still takes life like the brothers did, but of course they were well aware that they were murdering people, even if they attempted a half-assed justification of 'new rules'. Also, a modified trap is very suspicious, and I enjoy these games all the more because of how Telltale adds those subtle and unsettling details now and then.
To me it was the 'zombie apocalypse' context of retributive justice because not killing them would leave a risk of them committing the same acts on someone else. And really, showing mercy to cannibals? What would Clem think of that? The other adults understood, but I don't think a child would understand that future clemency can be manipulated, as in, not everyone plays fair, and some few people don't give a fuck about moral justifications at all.
Huh, I like the idea of them discussing killing him instead of just chopping his arm off. Even if it's just a brief thought, it would be an appropriate thought to make, given the situation.
Interesting situations? Hmm.
None come to mind. I think what I'd like most is more variations in the NPC conversations.
My favorite morality game was ME1 and it had plenty of that while playing. A big reason was because of the background selections. I felt that being able to choose the gender, background and reason for fame really individualized a playthrough. There were lots of mentions about those early choices by various NPC. You also were able to identify yourself as a Spector or Terran Commander and the meetings with the Council where I gave my reports were ALWAYS interesting, as I justified my actions to them.
In ME2 the background played far less and I felt I was being railroaded more, specifically that they forced me to be a loyal backer of the Illusive Man, not allowing me to spy for the Council or anything. I also liked the color coding so you knew Red was a violent choice and blue was peaceful. There have been several times in the Telltale games that I clicked on an option and didn't know it would cause my character to act in the way he did.
So, I suppose the one thing I really would have liked is, not having new morality choices but, to have your choices cause more variations in the NPC reactions. For instance, instead of telling Clem to shoot you or run away. That choice can be decided by the way you acted towards here. Also, longer conversations with branching dialogue choices. In ME2 there was a fascinating argument I had with Mordin over the morality of the plague he inflicted on Krogens. I had the option to argue all that I liked and when it was done I really felt that I had had a satisfying conclusion to it.
Killing them just makes you look like the bad guy in Clementine's eyes. So no, I didn't kill them. Just beat them up good.
Did you know that you can actually do that with Clem? Apparently choosing not to tell her to shoot you or leave you by letting the timer run out let's her decide based on what she thinks your choices mean, it's something that very few people did according to one of the vids I saw from telltale, think it was a making of. Choosing what you did with the scoia'tael in the witcher was like that for me, it just felt appropriately impactful plus I loved how the villagers sought shelter when it rained. ME1 and 2 did have some good dialogue in it which developed the characters very well.
Some of the response could have been clearer in the tone they were in for walking dead. My first play through when Clem needed to go pee I saw not right now and thought ok a kinda we have more important stuff on now tone and it came out much harsher. Similar with Ben when he confesses on the train, I was taken back by the harshness of what I thought would have been a much less angry response.
For me it would have been interesting to see someone at the car just because of the whole dairy thing. I would have loved more dialogue with Lilly after the Larry incident, she just seemed like such an interesting character even if it didn't change anything later on. The arguing to kill Lee thing I mentioned, I think it would make going alone seem like it was a good idea. In 400 days it would have been interesting if you had to kill Dee by strangling her to keep her quiet, like she was just getting louder and your hand was forced. Would have made the conversation with Leland way more interesting. Last I was hoping that Becca was doing favours for Roman like Molly did with the Doctor so that her and her sisters security was guaranteed. As sick as it is having it come out in the conversation about what she did for Shel before leaving would have been a shocker.
I made the same decisions that you did for the exact same reasons. You took the words right out of my mouth.
Danny wouldn't have been able to make it out of that trap. They both designed it so that humans couldn't escape. Even if there was some complicated loophole, the walkers would probably kill him before he got out. And if he did, I don't think he would have been able to defend himself on one leg. And Andy probably didn't have the strength to run away. He takes such a beating that it seems like he's exhausted. We saw how quickly the Governor kicked Rick's ass in Season 4, and Andy was just a repeat. Andy probably would have died, and Danny was a write-off the second he stepped on that bear trap.
The only reason I didn't kill them was because of Clementine. It's pretty amazing how she can influence your choices.
Nice to know I am not alone. :-)
I didn't know about the sound files, I honestly just thought his "giving his gun a girls name" was hinting that he was a armed forces veteran. IE from the scene from Full Metal Jacket "You will give your rifle a girl's name, because this is the only (insert another word for cat here) you will be getting."
I killed Danny - that son of a bitch deserved it, he got all mouthy and even before that i was really tempted to put the pitch fork through his head. Andy after i'd slung a few punches into him, he was too pathetic to finish off standing (or kneeling rather) in the rain, and i choose the option to return too the group - he'd had enough and besides i was feeling guilty from clem seeing me kill the other one. I was happy (well not happy but you know what i mean, i can't think of the right word im having a mind block) though when the zombies broke over the fence and presumably ate him, it was poetic justice and i didn't really expect it - i thought once chose to walk away that would be that. The only gripe i had with the choice i made with Danny is that the game guilt tripped me with clem seeing it.
They would have died regardless. Killing them would be to "nice". I let the walkers get them.
No, he owned a insurance company before the outbreak so I doubt he was in the armed forces. He's got that creepy vibe around him anyway ._.