Crawford Vs Ben (or Survival Vs Humanity)
I don't want to write too much in this topic for fear of influencing the poll but I'm interested looking at the Ben question through the prism of Crawford Survivalist Philosophy.
Ben
He's a young kid, he's an idiot, he's put you in danger multiple times but he's not bad, he's well meaning, he has the potential to be useful and will keep trying to be.
Now Ben has split this forum into 2 camps.
Those who would drop him because he's a threat or because he already screwed up & those who would save him out of compassion or his potential use. This particular issue is very relevant to the supporters and opponents of the way Crawford is run.
What I want to know is this
Did you support or agree with Crawfords policy of removing potential threats?
&
Did you drop Ben?
I'd really like forum answers to this and explanations, don't just vote and leave.
Poll is coming in a moment
Ben
He's a young kid, he's an idiot, he's put you in danger multiple times but he's not bad, he's well meaning, he has the potential to be useful and will keep trying to be.
Now Ben has split this forum into 2 camps.
Those who would drop him because he's a threat or because he already screwed up & those who would save him out of compassion or his potential use. This particular issue is very relevant to the supporters and opponents of the way Crawford is run.
What I want to know is this
Did you support or agree with Crawfords policy of removing potential threats?
&
Did you drop Ben?
I'd really like forum answers to this and explanations, don't just vote and leave.
Poll is coming in a moment
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I would like to know how people think that getting rid of Ben because they think he's a liability and couldn't pull his weight , is completely different from Crawford getting rid of people because they were a liability, or couldn't pull their own weight.
Unfortunately they were hurting people. They took all the good supplies, which made it harder for other people to live. They had rampant corruption, which hurt their own people. Their rules made their people miserable. They turned away children, elderly, and the sick, which is pretty much the same as a death sentence for those people.
So, the Crawford way didn't work, just like the St Johns didn't.
I've pretty much repeated this elsewhere but I saved Ben without even needing to think about it. All the mistakes he has made are done and killing him won't take that back.
The only pertinent question is whether he will continue to be a threat and does that justify letting him die. Ultimately I have to say no, you cant kill someone because of the mistakes they might make, this isn't Minority Report. He's well meaning and has the potential for both good and bad, the same as everyone else.
Crawford
Now this is a bit more difficult as a question.
Do I support Crawford as it was run? No, it was too severe and caused rebellion and it's own destruction.
Do I support Crawford as an idea? Hmm. There's something to be said for social evolution but it's a dangerous slope.
Ultimately no I can't support Crawford. I can agree with the separation and control of groups, according to status, but when it comes to letting people die depending on their usefulness, no.
as for ben i accidently dropped him, cos i honestly mis read let him go as let him up, so my thoughts where kenny was already against lee from the whole duck scenario and he never let me forget it.
so even after talking him down on the train, still no love there.
so cos i've tried to save the right people in my first run,
true story.
will be 'saving him for clem soon'
and the problem with crawford is that they missed the main point of why we are social animals that live and work together, and the point of that is to make a safe environment for our children and family to live in, what's the point of making a society that by it's own rules will have to kill itself in a few years, it's clearly the plan of an insane person that has no long term worth as a way to run a society.
I've said time and again that I think Ben will redeem himself... but, if I'm going to be honest, a lot of my choices that I make in-game are more for storytelling reasons than choices I will actually make. I would have saved Ben if it was me, because he's a good kid and I can relate to feeling like a fuck-up sometimes, but the main factor for me deciding to save Ben is that it will (hopefully) lead to some interesting tensions in the next episode.
If we are sacrificing the weak, the young and the ill to die, then what has humanity become? What has thousands of years of human evolution become if we revert back to mindless apes? It's the duty of the strong to PROTECT the weak. Even if they aren't able to fight or defend the walls against walkers, they can still provide aid and be useful members of the community. They still have immense potential.
The fact that Crawford turned those people away to the walkers is the entire reason why they failed. That's why the community only lasted a mere three months in the apocalypse. They gave up their humanity in exchange for safety, but in the end the trade caused their collapse.
That's why I've been a supporter of Ben this entire time. If you read back to my posts after Episode 3, I was always supporting him while about 80% of these forums wished death upon him. He may be an idiot, and he may not be survival oriented, but he has heart. The only reason he went along with the bandits was to help a friend, and then later to try and protect the group. He hasn't done anything malicious, and I see that he has the potential within him to become something more than a stupid kid. I'd save him again in Episode 5 if given the opportunity.
It's the same with Kenny. No matter how many times he just stands there while I'm attacked or subtly or flat out points out that I didn't support him during the Larry decision, I will ALWAYS save him. He's a member of MY group. He's a part of MY humanity, even if it's about to die in a maximum of 24 hours.
I saved Ben. I don't expect him to do anything heroic or whatever, I just think it's not right to let him die like that when you can save him. Though I understand the people who let him die because they thought there was no time, or because they thought he was redeeming himself that way... I just don't think it's right
And well, I actually like Ben. By the end of episode 4, Kenny said he wasn't helping and we don't really see eye to eye on a lot of things, and I like Christa and Omid but I feel they're a bit distrustful towards the group, kinda feels like they're only coming with Lee because he's bit. But then there was Ben... I let him decide for himself if he wanted to come along and he said I had been good to him so he'd help me find Clem. I see him as Lee's friend by that point. Probably the only one Ben has (besides Clem), poor guy
I don't agree with Crawfords rules, it's stupid, having all those medical supplies stored up, for what?!?! They don't need it for anything, if they kick the people out because their a drain on their food, fine, but kicking someone out because their ill is just horrible. I'm not saying that chucking someone out, even if they are a drain on food is fine, but it's more of a reason than for medical problems.
I dropped Ben because he is a liability, he left Clementine to be eaten by loads of zombies on the street to save his own sorry arse, he indirectly caused the death of Duck, Katjaa and Carley/Doug, and what pisses me off the most, if Ben had grown some when Lilly gets everyone out of the RV onto the road, if Ben had of said something about him making the deal Carley wouldn't be dead and Doug deserved to live, and not jump in front of a bullet for that worthless piece of shit. (Based on my second save play through for a friend who wanted me to choose certain things)
There, and if I get you sick murderer again I will be annoyed because seriously I don't care if you think that, save your time.
Support Crawford/Drop Ben - No Votes 0%
This is the most surprising choice. The lack of Crawford supporters is probably a good thing but becomes bizarre when you look below.
Support Crawford/Save Ben - 4 Votes 7.55%
We have 4 Crawford supporters, and all of them saved Ben. What the hell? Seems like a strange contradiction but it's about to get even stranger
Reject Crawford/Drop Ben - 10 Votes 18.87%
The Humanists (or Crawford objectors) are more likely to drop Ben than the survivalists. It's truly strange that people would be against Crawford and then follow through with exactly that attitude, for someone that even Crawford probably wouldn't kill. Keep in mind that Ben isn't ill, is the right age and is malleable.
Reject Crawford/Save Ben - 39 Votes 73.58%
No surprise on this one, the consistent humanists are the largest group.
(stupid teen skater voice) whhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttt????
Crawford took survival to a stupid level that was bound to fail.
Ben still has potential to shine. I believe in the kid.
Crawford wouldn't boot out Ben.
He'd "accidently" fuck up and kill them all before they could
In amongst Vernon's group are 3 people who are sick. They'd take those people in, knowing they could die in the night, but let the healthy teenager die? It's completely hypocritical to take the stance as a humanist, then pick and choose who dies, that's exactly what Crawford does.
Vernon says they're sick and they obviously wouldn't have had a significant checkup in some time.
Let's just examine this for a moment.
Ben actually succeeds in protecting the group. He supplies the bandits and they stay away. Duck and Katjaa aren't his fault, they're Lillys (and by extension, Kennys).
You also can't really blame him for Carley or Doug, he tries in every way to get out of that situation without getting killed. Once again the blame lays with Lilly (and by extension, Kenny)
He's somewhat responsible for Chuck, but Chuck made that choice.
As for Bree, yeah he's at fault but once again he's just doing what he's told. I blame Gary Whitta for that one.
I didn't let Ben die...even if he was a pain in the ass, I just couldn't let him die..even when it came down to voting him out of the group I just couldn't do it because that is the same as killing him. I hate the guy really especially when he got scared and didn't help Clem and when he took the axe out from the door.. Even so, it just seems wrong to kill Ben. He didn't directly kill Duck or Kaatja..hell, he was pretty naive but in the end the kid just wanted to see his friend again. He never had malicious intentions. I'm sure Kenny would have done something if bandits had his son or wife..
I believe in redemption, I think Ben will be a great person to have on your side in episode 5.
ben didn't kill anyone
then we should blame Danny because he indirectly caused all of the interaction between ben and our group, if he didn't set the trap that got David we would either have never meet Ben, or he would have his teacher and his friend to keep him out of trouble
Might aswell blame the cop for crashing into the first zombie we saw then, had that not happened Lee might have ended up in completely different predicaments.
Indirect blame is pure bullshit. It's just an excuse for those too cowardly to blame those actually responsible even if they can't get justice from them.
bree would still be alive if she had been paying attention and not wanted a vote on something that i felt she had no place being involved in voting on, why not blame the guy that died and became a zombie if he had not been an idiot and died he wouldn't have eaten bree, or we should blame lee for not telling everybody that the zombies want to come in the door and even if they go don't take the hatchet because it is there for a reason and they may come back