Probably not, but getting killed as a consequence of your compassion is - at least some times - mindless compassion. The difference being whether you knowingly sacrificed yourself to save another life (not mindless) or whether your compassionate feelings "forced" you to do something stupid getting yourself killed/wounded and only having an unintended or unforseen consequence for the object of your compassion.
Leaving Sarah in the trailer (my choice) was a case of no longer being mindlessly compassionate. Staying there is simply too great a risk to yourself and the two others who would then be put in a situation of choice as well.
That's what I mean: Clem is still compassionate, but her understanding of the world, her ability to think rationally - in tough situations - will be able to temper her emotions; and this will likely increase her survival chances, without turning her into Carver or the Governor.
I'll be willing to protect the baby, but if it proves to be too taxing, I'll probably end up putting it down.
You can't take care of someone else if you can't take care of yourself.
That is totally Carver's baby. Skin completion is the wrong color to be Alvin's, if you catch my drift. Have fun carrying a physiopaths baby around with you.
I don't see how the baby can be any worst then lugging around worthless Sarah.... who pretty much shit herself in every situation... just like a baby, except a baby you can put on your back and just take it for the ride...
Rebecca's baby does not represent all of the babies and children in the apocalypse. It represents Rebecca's baby. People really need to stop voicing as if it represents all. The fact of the matter is caring for an infant as a scavenger whilst you are not within a community is stupid and will get people killed. If the noise doesn't convince you of the dangers of traveling, the malnutrition and inability to care for it should. I love life and the light at the end of the tunnel for the future but caring for a baby on the go is not an intelligent decision to make. Yeah, Rebecca didn't plan for her being running away from Carver and likely was going to birth it at the Lowes analog. But things have changed; the safety of the infant, the safety of the group, the resources of the group (the entire group is starving for christ sakes), and so on and so forth. It's not moral to leave a baby on the side of the road or kill it or whatever you people think the OP (and my) viewpoint is. We don't want to be terrible; but in the apocalypse it is "adapt or die" and that includes your very limited moral world view. Morality isn't going to do many favors when rapists, thieves, selfish scavengers, psychopaths and so forth are scavenging right there with you-- you have to make the HARD choice and the hard choice is NOT the one you folks want to do.
As morbid as it sounds, that baby won't last with or without our help; and it's better to push it aside before it gets the entire group killed by attracting a horde. This isn't a compound where we have a safe perimeter, medical and food supplies, or anything resembelant of a place that will help this baby survive. We are on the road for weeks and weeks and months on end barely scraping by as zombies and psycopaths are on our rear-end. This is not the time to deal with infancy. Places like Wellington are. Survivors in Wellington and similar places are having children and raising them to be strong so I am not advocating that humanity should give up on childbirth but I will never approve that we should on the damned beaten path where we can't even provide for ourselves.
We're in the minority, but I'm with you. I sincerely hope we're not railroaded into caring about and keeping the baby. I know it might be te… moreetering on too dark for them to go the route of being able to leave it or whatever, but if you put it out there, we should have the choice. Never has the presence of a baby really improved a work of fiction for me, they're basically plot devices, and it's going to be such a burden trying to take care of it in a ZA. Honestly, if Kenny or Christa or whomever wants to raise the baby on their own, more power to them, but I'm not getting stuck in that situation.
I don't care who in the group that mindset costs me, tbh. My Clem will survive, damn it.
*Your *characterization of Clementine, not mine. But I agree, it is pretty disheartening and terrifying that it is something that becomes an "option". I don't like it and I'm anti-infant as they come with this topic. I've said a few pieces on how I'm not against "children and infants" as a concept, it's just on the road it's not the place for it especially in the state we are in. Your Clementine is strong, maybe stronger than mine to keep that compassion and optimism and morality. I hope the finale ends well for that characterization but my experience with dystopias and post-apoc settings makes it perhaps naive or blind, I hope I'm wrong. But I wouldn't approve of a contrived happy ending at every corner survival story either.
Personally, I think the idea of leaving a helpless baby to die in the cold is disgusting. There's no way I could do such a thing. I just hop… moree there's a way to give to baby to Christa or something. Clementine, no matter what playthrough, is not the type of person to leave a baby to suffer and die. Her parents and Lee taught her better than that. What's the point in living if you completely lose your humanity? I do agree that Clementine's safety is of the utmost importance though. Children and babies are the only chance humanity has at this point. They are the future. Clementine is a child and one who could very likely make it to adulthood. The baby's chances aren't as great as Clementine's right now and until they are, Clem's protection will come first. If there's any way to give that baby a future without jeopardizing Clem's safety, I want to take that option. Ideally, both Clem and the baby will be able to grow up and continue the species. A… [view original content]
The naivety of the majority never ceases to surprise me. To me the baby as a plot device I'm apathetic or neutral for, but all of what I know about post-apoc is yelling at me that this baby will get us killed sooner or later unless we magically find a surviving community in the final episode just like that (which would be contrived, but that's another discussion). I think it once again proves that a good portion of this community would not survive in a post-apoc scenario as they let their morals blind them into a worldview that becomes obsolete. The baby isn't important; reproduction is happening in safe communities, this one person does not represent ALL of the babies in the WORLD. Why the majority of the community keeps arguing that "I want humanity to survive" as if we are advocating no reproduction at all. It baffles me.
We're in the minority, but I'm with you. I sincerely hope we're not railroaded into caring about and keeping the baby. I know it might be te… moreetering on too dark for them to go the route of being able to leave it or whatever, but if you put it out there, we should have the choice. Never has the presence of a baby really improved a work of fiction for me, they're basically plot devices, and it's going to be such a burden trying to take care of it in a ZA. Honestly, if Kenny or Christa or whomever wants to raise the baby on their own, more power to them, but I'm not getting stuck in that situation.
I don't care who in the group that mindset costs me, tbh. My Clem will survive, damn it.
Once you have lost your humanity, then you are worse than the walking dead. They don't have a choice, you do.
The baby's chance of survival is remote. That doesn't mean you leave it. You do everything you can.
I saw someone say something like "Clementine is my main focus of survival". Why? Clementine is a lot like that baby. A girl at her age would be a drag on food, water, and medical resources. She can't run, or fight like a grown person. Yet we fight to keep her safe.
Rebecca's baby does not represent all of the babies and children in the apocalypse. It represents Rebecca's baby. People really need to stop… more voicing as if it represents all. The fact of the matter is caring for an infant as a scavenger whilst you are not within a community is stupid and will get people killed. If the noise doesn't convince you of the dangers of traveling, the malnutrition and inability to care for it should. I love life and the light at the end of the tunnel for the future but caring for a baby on the go is not an intelligent decision to make. Yeah, Rebecca didn't plan for her being running away from Carver and likely was going to birth it at the Lowes analog. But things have changed; the safety of the infant, the safety of the group, the resources of the group (the entire group is starving for christ sakes), and so on and so forth. It's not moral to leave a baby on the side of the road or kill it or whatever you people think… [view original content]
Clementine has shown efficient impulse control, usefulness to a group, handgun utility, and minor medical capacity. Don't pretend Clementine "is a lot like the baby". Hell, she might be (and I think is) a lot faster than a lot of the adults she ends up protecting.
You can maintain a concept of humanity without being ruled by morality. Morality is subjective.
Once you have lost your humanity, then you are worse than the walking dead. They don't have a choice, you do.
The baby's chance of survi… moreval is remote. That doesn't mean you leave it. You do everything you can.
I saw someone say something like "Clementine is my main focus of survival". Why? Clementine is a lot like that baby. A girl at her age would be a drag on food, water, and medical resources. She can't run, or fight like a grown person. Yet we fight to keep her safe.
I agree. The idea of Clem having the responsibility of a mother at the age of 11 just creeps me out. But realistically speaking, if Clem and the baby become the two last standing, how does baby survive without breastfeeding from the mother, proper food and shelter? It's just too difficult for Clementine no matter how mature, strong and independent the creators of the game wanted her to be. An 11 year old raising a child by her own is just too much.
Personally, I think the idea of leaving a helpless baby to die in the cold is disgusting. There's no way I could do such a thing. I just hop… moree there's a way to give to baby to Christa or something. Clementine, no matter what playthrough, is not the type of person to leave a baby to suffer and die. Her parents and Lee taught her better than that. What's the point in living if you completely lose your humanity? I do agree that Clementine's safety is of the utmost importance though. Children and babies are the only chance humanity has at this point. They are the future. Clementine is a child and one who could very likely make it to adulthood. The baby's chances aren't as great as Clementine's right now and until they are, Clem's protection will come first. If there's any way to give that baby a future without jeopardizing Clem's safety, I want to take that option. Ideally, both Clem and the baby will be able to grow up and continue the species. A… [view original content]
Clementine has shown efficient impulse control, usefulness to a group, handgun utility, and minor medical capacity. Don't pretend Clementine… more "is a lot like the baby". Hell, she might be (and I think is) a lot faster than a lot of the adults she ends up protecting.
You can maintain a concept of humanity without being ruled by morality. Morality is subjective.
The fact that's it's a game is irrelevant. The character has done it in their fictionalized setting. In that setting she has achieved these traits. You are talking nonsense.
I don't think you understand any of my points at all if you use a "hur hur here's something despicable do you agree with him." Morality is defined as a principle or principles viewing the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Thus it is a perspective ideology that varies from culture to culture and person to person. It doesn't matter if I disagree or agree, because ideology varies. There is no such thing as objective morality.
Are you all forgetting that we are going up north in the Winter with a NAKED baby? That baby has no warmth outside of a blanket. Whatever formula we have, it won't last very long. Honestly breast feeding was probably the only way to KEEP the baby fed. That's because it's available most of the time. Babies can't eat solid food for a few good months. The main problem is we are a group with NOTHING. No shelter. No food. No water. No medicine. Not much sanity either. Let's look at who the baby has to rely on shall we?
Luke: Makes really good plans...which he tends to screw up
Bonnie: Will do whatever necessary, but usually just follows direction(never really makes the plan herself)
Kenny: Protective....but will lose his mind at any time and completely turn against you if you aren't his "yes man" also you are the only thing keep him from losing it...for a third time
Mike: strong, good survival instincts, but telltale will probably kill him because everyone likes him for the LULZ
Clementine: smart and sensible, but she's 11 and knows nothing about babies even though she was with a pregnant woman for months.
I don't want the baby because this group isn't ready for a baby.
Are you really trying to say that taking care of a baby is just as easy as taking care of Clementine? A baby doesn't even know how to walk, chew, talk, have self-control...
Are you really trying to say that taking care of a baby is just as easy as taking care of Clementine? A baby doesn't even know how to walk, chew, talk, have self-control...
Rightly so. Babies are innocent and helpless. They haven't had the time to be cruel or hurtful to anyone. They are completely at our mercy. … moreTo "hate" something that is helpless, innocent, and at your mercy is vile. Hate is a very strong feeling. I'd much rather be around a baby than some nutcase who "hates" babies. That's just irrational, hating a baby. Disliking them or not wanting be around then when they cry is much more understandable. People who "hate" babies or animals are highly suspicious in my eyes. It's very revealing when you hate the weakest among you. Maybe you worded your comment wrong, but if you truly "hate" tiny, helpless humans, then I can understand why people look at you like a monster. No offense.
I don't really want the baby either. I mean, I'm okay with dealing with throughout episode 5, but I really don't want Clem to have to care for that helpless thing all throughout Season 3. That being said, it can't die. It just can't. From a narrative standpoint, killing off that baby would be more unacceptable than killing Clem off. That thing needs to survive and it needs to get to a safe place where it can be cared for by good people. That's my goal. Get it safe, get it cared for, get it the hell away from me.
So you say that it's disturbing but people turning up into undead monsters who slice humans in half, snatch their guts out of their bellies manually and way more psychopathic acts not disturbing? >_>
Instead of the baby I want to add a bit of my thoughts on Rebecca. It is my impression that they really misused the character and her baby in the plot. Basically my point is that Rebecca is too neutral the whole time for us to feel any kind of meaningful connection with the baby. She wasn't evil enough for you to hate her and she wasn't nice enough for you to love her either. In the end the baby is just a baby, they could pick up a random baby along the road and we probably wouldn't care more or less compared to Rebecca's baby.
And I don't think this scenario is similar to the Clementine Lee relationship in Season 1. A baby is very different from a child. Both are very vulnerable but only a child has his or her own personality. You may care a baby out of obligation but you can grew to love and appreciate a child's personality. IRL babies are just cute and you end up loving them anyway, but in fiction personality is much more important. I can't love a fictional baby just because it is a baby, but I definitely can love a fictional child if he or she is agreeable enough.
And that comes back to my original point, if I am to care about this baby, I have to care about its parent in the first case. And in this situation I don't. A baby plot would work out miraculously well however, if it is Christa's baby. Just imagine following scenario: after loosing Omid in the beginning, Christa and Clementine went through a lot of hardship and eventually Christa gave birth to a baby, I can bet everyone will love the hell out of this baby and don't mind even if it ever becomes a burden.
That being said I still think the current baby plot can work out fine, if it ties with Christa's baby in episode 5, like Clementine grows attached to it because it reminds her of the baby they lost during time skip. But that remains to be seen.
That baby's gonna be more of a liability than Sarah was, and I didn't care enough to babysit even her. I hated Judith in the TV show and I c… morean instantly tell I'm gonna dislike this baby too. I hope the story doesn't railroad us into caring for it, but I suspect it will.
Ugh, I know. IRL I love babies and it kills me that I want to leave this baby behind. I really, really hope it's not our endgame though. Not… more only is it an overused trope (babies are the salvation in the post-apocalyptic world etc etc) but I don't want Clem to take care of a baby. Are you kidding me she's 11. That shouldn't even be an option.
But they did it. Nothing in this world has been easy but if they are strong and persistent, they make it. Its hard but its not impossible. I really hate the idea of killing a newborn because its easier.
We don't know what'll happen to Clementine and the others. What if Clementine has to run away with the baby to keep it safe? What if everyone dies, and Clementine's the only one there to take care of the baby? The game seems to be hinting that a lot of responsibility will be forced on to Clem.
So you say that it's disturbing but people turning up into undead monsters who slice humans in half, snatch their guts out of their bellies manually and way more psychopathic acts not disturbing? >_>
I don't want it either, taking care of it would be way too big of a burden. It will start crying and attracting walkers, you need formula for it, you have to always watch it since it can't even do anything.
While I wouldn't leave it behind, it puts a burden and risk on the rest of the group.
We don't know what'll happen to Clementine and the others. What if Clementine has to run away with the baby to keep it safe? What if everyon… moree dies, and Clementine's the only one there to take care of the baby? The game seems to be hinting that a lot of responsibility will be forced on to Clem.
Oh, I didn't mean that you were wrong. I meant that the TTG writers made a mistake regarding that issue.
Maybe Russian Harry Potter made the formula appear into existence
I would keep the baby even though it will probably attract zombies and get someone killed or die because it's hungry and cold because it's a baby and i like babies.
Comments
But they managed.
I like to think people are kidding...?
She was pretty compassionate - right up to the point where she had to shoot Lee
She's still compassionate, just not mindlessly so
Lee: "See, you can take care of yourself now"
Clementine: "Not all the time"
That was still a compassionate choice, putting Lee out of his misery. I suppose caring for a baby is mindless compassion?
Probably not, but getting killed as a consequence of your compassion is - at least some times - mindless compassion. The difference being whether you knowingly sacrificed yourself to save another life (not mindless) or whether your compassionate feelings "forced" you to do something stupid getting yourself killed/wounded and only having an unintended or unforseen consequence for the object of your compassion.
Leaving Sarah in the trailer (my choice) was a case of no longer being mindlessly compassionate. Staying there is simply too great a risk to yourself and the two others who would then be put in a situation of choice as well.
That's what I mean: Clem is still compassionate, but her understanding of the world, her ability to think rationally - in tough situations - will be able to temper her emotions; and this will likely increase her survival chances, without turning her into Carver or the Governor.
Once we get into the next generation the number of survivors will drop rapidly.
Yeah but it was hard.
That you can say that is disturbing, game or not
Judith could be Shane's. It doesn't make the baby bad or anything
Rebecca's baby does not represent all of the babies and children in the apocalypse. It represents Rebecca's baby. People really need to stop voicing as if it represents all. The fact of the matter is caring for an infant as a scavenger whilst you are not within a community is stupid and will get people killed. If the noise doesn't convince you of the dangers of traveling, the malnutrition and inability to care for it should. I love life and the light at the end of the tunnel for the future but caring for a baby on the go is not an intelligent decision to make. Yeah, Rebecca didn't plan for her being running away from Carver and likely was going to birth it at the Lowes analog. But things have changed; the safety of the infant, the safety of the group, the resources of the group (the entire group is starving for christ sakes), and so on and so forth. It's not moral to leave a baby on the side of the road or kill it or whatever you people think the OP (and my) viewpoint is. We don't want to be terrible; but in the apocalypse it is "adapt or die" and that includes your very limited moral world view. Morality isn't going to do many favors when rapists, thieves, selfish scavengers, psychopaths and so forth are scavenging right there with you-- you have to make the HARD choice and the hard choice is NOT the one you folks want to do.
As morbid as it sounds, that baby won't last with or without our help; and it's better to push it aside before it gets the entire group killed by attracting a horde. This isn't a compound where we have a safe perimeter, medical and food supplies, or anything resembelant of a place that will help this baby survive. We are on the road for weeks and weeks and months on end barely scraping by as zombies and psycopaths are on our rear-end. This is not the time to deal with infancy. Places like Wellington are. Survivors in Wellington and similar places are having children and raising them to be strong so I am not advocating that humanity should give up on childbirth but I will never approve that we should on the damned beaten path where we can't even provide for ourselves.
[removed]
*Your *characterization of Clementine, not mine. But I agree, it is pretty disheartening and terrifying that it is something that becomes an "option". I don't like it and I'm anti-infant as they come with this topic. I've said a few pieces on how I'm not against "children and infants" as a concept, it's just on the road it's not the place for it especially in the state we are in. Your Clementine is strong, maybe stronger than mine to keep that compassion and optimism and morality. I hope the finale ends well for that characterization but my experience with dystopias and post-apoc settings makes it perhaps naive or blind, I hope I'm wrong. But I wouldn't approve of a contrived happy ending at every corner survival story either.
The naivety of the majority never ceases to surprise me. To me the baby as a plot device I'm apathetic or neutral for, but all of what I know about post-apoc is yelling at me that this baby will get us killed sooner or later unless we magically find a surviving community in the final episode just like that (which would be contrived, but that's another discussion). I think it once again proves that a good portion of this community would not survive in a post-apoc scenario as they let their morals blind them into a worldview that becomes obsolete. The baby isn't important; reproduction is happening in safe communities, this one person does not represent ALL of the babies in the WORLD. Why the majority of the community keeps arguing that "I want humanity to survive" as if we are advocating no reproduction at all. It baffles me.
Once you have lost your humanity, then you are worse than the walking dead. They don't have a choice, you do.
The baby's chance of survival is remote. That doesn't mean you leave it. You do everything you can.
I saw someone say something like "Clementine is my main focus of survival". Why? Clementine is a lot like that baby. A girl at her age would be a drag on food, water, and medical resources. She can't run, or fight like a grown person. Yet we fight to keep her safe.
Clementine has shown efficient impulse control, usefulness to a group, handgun utility, and minor medical capacity. Don't pretend Clementine "is a lot like the baby". Hell, she might be (and I think is) a lot faster than a lot of the adults she ends up protecting.
You can maintain a concept of humanity without being ruled by morality. Morality is subjective.
I agree. The idea of Clem having the responsibility of a mother at the age of 11 just creeps me out. But realistically speaking, if Clem and the baby become the two last standing, how does baby survive without breastfeeding from the mother, proper food and shelter? It's just too difficult for Clementine no matter how mature, strong and independent the creators of the game wanted her to be. An 11 year old raising a child by her own is just too much.
[removed]
That's a piss-poor strawman's argument.
The fact that's it's a game is irrelevant. The character has done it in their fictionalized setting. In that setting she has achieved these traits. You are talking nonsense.
I don't think you understand any of my points at all if you use a "hur hur here's something despicable do you agree with him." Morality is defined as a principle or principles viewing the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Thus it is a perspective ideology that varies from culture to culture and person to person. It doesn't matter if I disagree or agree, because ideology varies. There is no such thing as objective morality.
Are you all forgetting that we are going up north in the Winter with a NAKED baby? That baby has no warmth outside of a blanket. Whatever formula we have, it won't last very long. Honestly breast feeding was probably the only way to KEEP the baby fed. That's because it's available most of the time. Babies can't eat solid food for a few good months. The main problem is we are a group with NOTHING. No shelter. No food. No water. No medicine. Not much sanity either. Let's look at who the baby has to rely on shall we?
Luke: Makes really good plans...which he tends to screw up
Bonnie: Will do whatever necessary, but usually just follows direction(never really makes the plan herself)
Kenny: Protective....but will lose his mind at any time and completely turn against you if you aren't his "yes man" also you are the only thing keep him from losing it...for a third time
Mike: strong, good survival instincts, but telltale will probably kill him because everyone likes him for the LULZ
Clementine: smart and sensible, but she's 11 and knows nothing about babies even though she was with a pregnant woman for months.
I don't want the baby because this group isn't ready for a baby.
Are you really trying to say that taking care of a baby is just as easy as taking care of Clementine? A baby doesn't even know how to walk, chew, talk, have self-control...
No, I was saying that even Clem needs help sometimes regardless of how self-reliant she is, and I think she knows it.
Animals aren't exactly helpless, but otherwise I agree.
I don't really want the baby either. I mean, I'm okay with dealing with throughout episode 5, but I really don't want Clem to have to care for that helpless thing all throughout Season 3. That being said, it can't die. It just can't. From a narrative standpoint, killing off that baby would be more unacceptable than killing Clem off. That thing needs to survive and it needs to get to a safe place where it can be cared for by good people. That's my goal. Get it safe, get it cared for, get it the hell away from me.
So you say that it's disturbing but people turning up into undead monsters who slice humans in half, snatch their guts out of their bellies manually and way more psychopathic acts not disturbing? >_>
Instead of the baby I want to add a bit of my thoughts on Rebecca. It is my impression that they really misused the character and her baby in the plot. Basically my point is that Rebecca is too neutral the whole time for us to feel any kind of meaningful connection with the baby. She wasn't evil enough for you to hate her and she wasn't nice enough for you to love her either. In the end the baby is just a baby, they could pick up a random baby along the road and we probably wouldn't care more or less compared to Rebecca's baby.
And I don't think this scenario is similar to the Clementine Lee relationship in Season 1. A baby is very different from a child. Both are very vulnerable but only a child has his or her own personality. You may care a baby out of obligation but you can grew to love and appreciate a child's personality. IRL babies are just cute and you end up loving them anyway, but in fiction personality is much more important. I can't love a fictional baby just because it is a baby, but I definitely can love a fictional child if he or she is agreeable enough.
And that comes back to my original point, if I am to care about this baby, I have to care about its parent in the first case. And in this situation I don't. A baby plot would work out miraculously well however, if it is Christa's baby. Just imagine following scenario: after loosing Omid in the beginning, Christa and Clementine went through a lot of hardship and eventually Christa gave birth to a baby, I can bet everyone will love the hell out of this baby and don't mind even if it ever becomes a burden.
That being said I still think the current baby plot can work out fine, if it ties with Christa's baby in episode 5, like Clementine grows attached to it because it reminds her of the baby they lost during time skip. But that remains to be seen.
How can you hate Judith? She is the quietest baby in the world. There is nothing to hate unless you just hate the very fact of her existence.
Well, obviously not because Rick is going to be very happy his daughter is alive.
There are other adults in the group. I dont see why she has to anyway. She can just be an aunt to him.
But they did it. Nothing in this world has been easy but if they are strong and persistent, they make it. Its hard but its not impossible. I really hate the idea of killing a newborn because its easier.
We don't know what'll happen to Clementine and the others. What if Clementine has to run away with the baby to keep it safe? What if everyone dies, and Clementine's the only one there to take care of the baby? The game seems to be hinting that a lot of responsibility will be forced on to Clem.
Well, duh? Ha jk.
I don't want it either, taking care of it would be way too big of a burden. It will start crying and attracting walkers, you need formula for it, you have to always watch it since it can't even do anything.
While I wouldn't leave it behind, it puts a burden and risk on the rest of the group.
Well, she would have to find another group. I cant see her raising a baby on her own until it's 18.
Feed the baby with a raccoon!
I would keep the baby even though it will probably attract zombies and get someone killed or die because it's hungry and cold because it's a baby and i like babies.