People are so full of themselves with their shitty morals here, it's sickening. The sheer fact that you reflect on this problem will probabl… morey lead to a more humane behavior by you than by any of these self-proclaimed moralists in this thread.
Oh, the irony...
What's disturbing to me is how many people are ignoring the context of the situation and resorting to a simplistic black and white view of m… moreorality. Imagine you were a Jew trapped in a concentration camp. You then devise a plan to kill or incapacitate the officers in charge of the camp. The odds of you succeeding in that mission are astoundingly low but if you were to be successful, then it would mean the freedom of all the people trapped in that hellhole. Its a very noble cause but its almost certain to lead to your death. Would this person then be considered a monster if he chooses not to go on this suicide mission?
It is wrong to not even try, if there truly is no hope then save yourself, but to be so petty as to not even bother is just horrible.
With this line you've made the argument depend on your judgement of "when there is no hope". That's going to vary from person to person, depending on how capable they consider themselves, how lucky they think they are, what they know about the situation they are in, etc. And in fact, it invalidates your whole argument.
No one would leave a baby behind because they think they can raise it but say "screw it, I don't want to be bothered". They would do it because they think they are going to fail if they try. That the baby is going to die, and they with it. Especially if the mother, the only renewable source of baby milk, isn't around to feed it. So by your own argument, they're justified in leaving it behind.
Otherwise, how would you suggest that they decide when there is no hope? After the baby dies or after it gets them all killed is a little late to retroactively decide that leaving it would have been ok.
That's optional though, there are some things Telltale will and won't let us do. It isn't really a romantic notion, it's simply different mo… morerals. It is wrong to not even try, if there truly is no hope then save yourself, but to be so petty as to not even bother is just horrible.If Lee had abandoned Clem because she was a child and thus a burden back then, I'm sure you'd disagree. War is odd, it's different yet the same. I'd say the nuking of Japanese cities was monstrous even though it was the only thing they could do back then to prevent even more casualties on both sides in an invasion. That is on a huge scale though, and it isn't my place to judge war actions, that said I disagree with drones and bombings even though they're a necessity of war. If President Obama didn't know all the facts I don't blame him, intel isn't perfect and there are mistakes. It's horrible but yeah. Willingly abandoning an innocent as one person though, not an army… [view original content]
Wouldn't that make the person you died to save a monster? After all, if they had killed themselves, they would have kept you from dying to save them. So they basically got you killed so they could live. By your reasoning, they're selfish monsters.
Saving a monster would be wrong, so it's morally wrong to die to save another person, by your logic.
What's disturbing to me is how many people are ignoring the context of the situation and resorting to a simplistic black and white view of m… moreorality.
Thats what makes them a good person. If you can't sacrifice yourself to save another human being than you are no better than the person who is putting that person's life at risk. I would consider that person no better than the Nazis if he doesn't go on that mission.
Oh, I'm sure going all "Kenny" on someone that wants to leave your group is going to make sure they don't leave. Just like Carver, make sure everyone is doing what you think they should be doing, even if they want no part of it and just want to leave.
Wow, so edgy. Did Jane make this thread?
I'd go all "Kenny" on anyone who even considers abandoning a baby. I find it hilarious that a … morelot of people are totally on board with Kenny's reaction, yet are okay with letting a young child die for 'practicality'. Even Jane wasn't that sociopathic to go through with it.
Your third point is very good. AJ is a boy. As far as the "future of the human race" is concerned, he's expendable. His role can be taken up by any male aged 16 and up. On the other hand, Clementine is as valuable as you can get. She's about to enter reproductive age, she's already been through the most resource intensive part of growing up, she's trained and healthy. Clementine's life is invaluable. Anything that improves her chances improves humanity's chances, while AJ, in the big scheme of things, doesn't matter.
So it seems like there are three main arguments people keep bringing up.
1) Anyone who would abandon a baby is a monster!
Before making … morethis claim, make sure you understand just how difficult it would be for an 11 year old girl to raise an infant by herself in a zombie apocalypse. Its not just some minor inconvenience, its a suicide mission. How would you deal with the baby constantly drawing walkers to your location with his crying? What would you feed the baby with? Clementine didn't seem to have any baby formula with her as she walks off by herself. I mean I could keep going on and on about all the different problems you would face by raising the baby but I think even these two should be enough to make you realize what you're getting yourself into. His crying alone makes him a deathtrap. Its challenging enough to raise a baby in real life. Raising one by yourself in a world packed with zombies coming at you from all directions is suici… [view original content]
As long as Clementine is alive and able to fend for herself, she can fend for a baby.
No she can't. Babies have very strict dietary requirements. Specifically, a young child like AJ, only days old, can only drink milk, and he needs to eat every few hours, even through the night. If he misses a meal, he's going to start crying and attract walkers. And it won't take many missed meals to kill him. Unlike more grown people, he can't go for days without food. And if he does, and survives, he's going to grow up malnourished, which can have severe effects in brain and body development.
Without his mother around, or a steady supply of baby formula, AJ is doomed.
Clem, on the other hand, can eat pretty much anything. She can forage for food in forests, hunt small animals, eat beans and peaches, etc. It's much easier to keep Clementine fed than it is to keep AJ fed.
As long as Clementine is alive and able to fend for herself, she can fend for a baby. You can't just 'up and leave when it gets tough.' Yo… moreu stick around for those who need you, no matter what. That's one thing that Kenny got right.
And I know that the Clementine I've known is one who's never abandoned her humanity. She has stopped sympathizing with those who've lost theirs, but she's always willing to give the weak and vulnerable a chance because she herself was weak and vulnerable once.
And this thread reminds me of an earlier thread where people were considering the hypothetical possibility of either having to choose a baby or Sarah. While I really can't think of a scenario contrived enough where it isn't possible to save both, I WOULD agree that young women pose a better chance of providing short-term survival than a child who would need years of protection and teaching before it can approach anywhere near self-sufficiency. But… [view original content]
I kind of thought this would be the last choice of the season, actually. I mean, Clem is friggin' eleven and she's been through hell and back how many times now? Does she really deserve the burden and risk of trying to keep an infant alive on top of everything else? That thing is better suited to communities, not (in my case) a lone pre-teen wandering a post-apocalyptic world. If there had been an option to leave AJ to Jane (who I kept alive but then left) I would've handed him off and walked into the sunset alone in a second.
I have no idea why everybody is so obsessed with baby in game and on this forum.
Personally, I would get rid of baby ASAP(that goes for pregnant rebecca too). It was a big surprise for me that Clem is forced to love the baby.
I was so thankful when Jane got rid of it(until it was revealed that she lied).
Anyway why everybody here wants to keep baby? Are you insane? You are in post apocalyptic world for fucks sake, your main goal is to survive, not babysit. Especially when you are little girl yourself. Its a large burden for atleast next 10 years before it will become somewhat useful.
I have no idea why there are so many pro baby people here.. its so irrational, so ignorant
It really doesn't. If there's potential for anything to feed it around, then look for it. Many real people would be able to outrun walkers find a place with stairs to hold up in so the baby crying wouldn't do much bad. Unsure why you seem to say it's alright to abandon it without even looking for anything to help, but eh, people try to look cool. Some things don't need a logical response, there are some things you don't just act like a selfish asshole over
It is wrong to not even try, if there truly is no hope then save yourself, but to be so petty as to not even bother is just horrible.
… more With this line you've made the argument depend on your judgement of "when there is no hope". That's going to vary from person to person, depending on how capable they consider themselves, how lucky they think they are, what they know about the situation they are in, etc. And in fact, it invalidates your whole argument.
No one would leave a baby behind because they think they can raise it but say "screw it, I don't want to be bothered". They would do it because they think they are going to fail if they try. That the baby is going to die, and they with it. Especially if the mother, the only renewable source of baby milk, isn't around to feed it. So by your own argument, they're justified in leaving it behind.
Otherwise, how would you suggest that they decide when there is no hope? After the baby die… [view original content]
Well, you're changing the premises of the situation on-the-fly here and I don't see the point really. It was never the question what to do if you have a capable group of people, shelter and food. The question was what to do in the situation Clem was in at the ending when she left both Kenny or Jane.
You bluntly stated that NEVER EVER UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would it be okay to abandon a baby and that's the nonsense I referred to.
Was their a survey for that? I didn't say blindly have babies for the lulz in a situation that though, only do it when supplies and room are… more high, mortality rate has gone down and things are better, if someone has a baby by accident I wouldn't dare tell them to leave or what to do with it, like Crawford, there'd need to be a logical discussion before jumping on a murder the baby bandwagon. Like increasing foraging, expansions etc. and saying no to people whom want in, as Wellington does, but giving them something and telling them they're welcome to come back, because they are capable of fending for themselves and the baby isn't
There aren't many secure places to hold up when you're two years into a zombie apocalypse. Many locations have likely either been stripped down or damaged by people/walkers/lack of maintenance. Crying inside the building can still attract walkers. A massive influx of walkers can likely break through most doors/windows. Not to mention the fact that when Clementine takes the baby, there didn't seem to be any secure buildings nearby. She just takes off into the wilderness. Even if she can avoid detection from walkers, what exactly is she going to feed the baby with? It has a very limited diet that isn't exactly easy to come by. A newborn of that age can die of starvation alot faster than someone of Clementine's age would. Its a suicide mission, plain and simple. You might as well ask random people from the street to fly over to Iraq and defeat ISIS once and for all. A noble yet almost impossible task that will most likely end in their deaths. Would they be selfish assholes to refuse such suicidal odds without even trying?
It really doesn't. If there's potential for anything to feed it around, then look for it. Many real people would be able to outrun walkers f… moreind a place with stairs to hold up in so the baby crying wouldn't do much bad. Unsure why you seem to say it's alright to abandon it without even looking for anything to help, but eh, people try to look cool. Some things don't need a logical response, there are some things you don't just act like a selfish asshole over
I never talked about your emotions, I talked about your delusion that you think you can save everybody everytime or think it's worth trying even if both die in the process. Please show me all these real people that pulled off such a darwin, I want to know them.
Sure, having emotions and morals is a megalomaniac complex. Good narrow minded thinking. Omnitpotency doesn't have anything to do with this,… more and sure, no one knows how they'd react in that situation to a letter, but your lecture kind of falls flat considering the amount of real people whom have gone against your supposedly unbeatable logic and saved others by risking themselves. Are they all insane or glory seekers, or do they just want to help?
Couldn't you leave AJ at Wellington and go with Kenny? I don't know the other endings but I think it should have been possible. Because AJ will be safe to not forget that Clem and Kenny would have less of a burden.
I guess it's the same people that get children and are surprised afterwards how much work and pain in the ass a baby actually is.
I don't see many other explanations but that of great ignorance on that matter.
Yeah, sure, get rid of a baby, get rid of a pregnant woman, get rid of a girl that's not capable of defending herself. And after a while you start killing people over berries.
On a similar note, did anyone else think that the "stick your tounge out" option was going to be more hateful instead of Clem just making a funny face to calm down the baby? Lol
Almost every walker (excepting those that are the result of dying by natural causes) is a person that wasn't able to fend for themselves. Most of those weren't saddled with the extra difficulty of caring for a newborn. So no, it's not easy to look after yourself and find safe spots when you need them, or it wouldn't be an apocalypse in the first place.
I'm not saying that one shouldn't make an effort. But once the mother is dead, the baby has essentially no chance. Even if you find a couple of caches of baby formula, you're going to need a constant supply. Also, I did a bit of research just now and it seems baby formula is not like powdered milk, that can essentially be stored indefinitely, it has a shelf life. A long one, but going on the second year of the apocalypse, it should have started going bad if not properly stored. So any baby formula you find is likely to be bad or cause complications.
And yes, everything does need a logical response. You just live in a society that has used logic to the point that many sacrifices are no longer necessary. You don't need to worry about getting water, because other people already used logic to figure out how to send it to every house. You don't need to worry about food, because other people already used logic to figure out how to produce and transport it. You don't need to think about electricity and fuel, because other people already used logic to figure out every challenge you are likely to face.
Once society breaks down and you don't have "other people" solving your problems for you, refusing to acknowledge those problems and think about them only puts you and everyone that cares about you at risk.
It really doesn't. If there's potential for anything to feed it around, then look for it. Many real people would be able to outrun walkers f… moreind a place with stairs to hold up in so the baby crying wouldn't do much bad. Unsure why you seem to say it's alright to abandon it without even looking for anything to help, but eh, people try to look cool. Some things don't need a logical response, there are some things you don't just act like a selfish asshole over
But never did I say you can save everyone every time. I said a person's life is always worth trying to save, at least unless they've actively attempted to kill you. Also, look in the news if you want real heroes. There's no need to mock them for helping others yet risking themselves though
I never talked about your emotions, I talked about your delusion that you think you can save everybody everytime or think it's worth trying … moreeven if both die in the process. Please show me all these real people that pulled off such a darwin, I want to know them.
Come on people, it would've been an interesting moral dilemma. Are you willing to risk your own life for a helpless infant or will you make … morethe grim choice of abandoning him so as to improve your odds at survival? And as Rigtail mentioned above, abandoning the baby doesn't have to lead to its death. We could've left him with Kenny/Jane.
Abandoning the baby....that was the only thing I liked about Jane. She would have had the "balls" to simply leave it behind. Would have done the same. It's only going to cause trouble and it's not even mine. Fuck it. You can hate me for this way of thinking all you want, it's still what I think.
oh i wish. because let's face it,this baby has no chance to survive. i wasn't even sad when they all thought it was dead. it's also dangerous to be outside with the baby because noise attracts the walkers and babies scream when they are hungry. i am actually wondering how it survived for 9 days when kenny and clem walked to wellington. it needs food. telltale logic at its finest. but i am sure we won't continue at the point where season 2 ended and a couple of months already passed at the start of season 3. maybe it's dead in season 3. i am also wondering how EVERYONE (except jane) wanted to keep the baby and was worried about it all the time. i thought they're smart enough to realize that this baby won't have a chance. it's sad how his parents died but that's no need to be blind about the fact that a baby's needs are hard to satisfy when zombies are walking around.
guess we have to see what telltale is up to.
Comments
I automatically love you for recognizing my avatar.
[removed]
Somebody seems pissed off
Heck id take the chance
With this line you've made the argument depend on your judgement of "when there is no hope". That's going to vary from person to person, depending on how capable they consider themselves, how lucky they think they are, what they know about the situation they are in, etc. And in fact, it invalidates your whole argument.
No one would leave a baby behind because they think they can raise it but say "screw it, I don't want to be bothered". They would do it because they think they are going to fail if they try. That the baby is going to die, and they with it. Especially if the mother, the only renewable source of baby milk, isn't around to feed it. So by your own argument, they're justified in leaving it behind.
Otherwise, how would you suggest that they decide when there is no hope? After the baby dies or after it gets them all killed is a little late to retroactively decide that leaving it would have been ok.
Not me.
Wouldn't that make the person you died to save a monster? After all, if they had killed themselves, they would have kept you from dying to save them. So they basically got you killed so they could live. By your reasoning, they're selfish monsters.
Saving a monster would be wrong, so it's morally wrong to die to save another person, by your logic.
Oh, I'm sure going all "Kenny" on someone that wants to leave your group is going to make sure they don't leave. Just like Carver, make sure everyone is doing what you think they should be doing, even if they want no part of it and just want to leave.
Your third point is very good. AJ is a boy. As far as the "future of the human race" is concerned, he's expendable. His role can be taken up by any male aged 16 and up. On the other hand, Clementine is as valuable as you can get. She's about to enter reproductive age, she's already been through the most resource intensive part of growing up, she's trained and healthy. Clementine's life is invaluable. Anything that improves her chances improves humanity's chances, while AJ, in the big scheme of things, doesn't matter.
No she can't. Babies have very strict dietary requirements. Specifically, a young child like AJ, only days old, can only drink milk, and he needs to eat every few hours, even through the night. If he misses a meal, he's going to start crying and attract walkers. And it won't take many missed meals to kill him. Unlike more grown people, he can't go for days without food. And if he does, and survives, he's going to grow up malnourished, which can have severe effects in brain and body development.
Without his mother around, or a steady supply of baby formula, AJ is doomed.
Clem, on the other hand, can eat pretty much anything. She can forage for food in forests, hunt small animals, eat beans and peaches, etc. It's much easier to keep Clementine fed than it is to keep AJ fed.
I kind of thought this would be the last choice of the season, actually. I mean, Clem is friggin' eleven and she's been through hell and back how many times now? Does she really deserve the burden and risk of trying to keep an infant alive on top of everything else? That thing is better suited to communities, not (in my case) a lone pre-teen wandering a post-apocalyptic world. If there had been an option to leave AJ to Jane (who I kept alive but then left) I would've handed him off and walked into the sunset alone in a second.
In response to the thread title,
No.
I have no idea why everybody is so obsessed with baby in game and on this forum.
Personally, I would get rid of baby ASAP(that goes for pregnant rebecca too). It was a big surprise for me that Clem is forced to love the baby.
I was so thankful when Jane got rid of it(until it was revealed that she lied).
Anyway why everybody here wants to keep baby? Are you insane? You are in post apocalyptic world for fucks sake, your main goal is to survive, not babysit. Especially when you are little girl yourself. Its a large burden for atleast next 10 years before it will become somewhat useful.
I have no idea why there are so many pro baby people here.. its so irrational, so ignorant
They explained why in the IGN spoilercast for episode 5
It really doesn't. If there's potential for anything to feed it around, then look for it. Many real people would be able to outrun walkers find a place with stairs to hold up in so the baby crying wouldn't do much bad. Unsure why you seem to say it's alright to abandon it without even looking for anything to help, but eh, people try to look cool. Some things don't need a logical response, there are some things you don't just act like a selfish asshole over
Well, you're changing the premises of the situation on-the-fly here and I don't see the point really. It was never the question what to do if you have a capable group of people, shelter and food. The question was what to do in the situation Clem was in at the ending when she left both Kenny or Jane.
You bluntly stated that NEVER EVER UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would it be okay to abandon a baby and that's the nonsense I referred to.
There aren't many secure places to hold up when you're two years into a zombie apocalypse. Many locations have likely either been stripped down or damaged by people/walkers/lack of maintenance. Crying inside the building can still attract walkers. A massive influx of walkers can likely break through most doors/windows. Not to mention the fact that when Clementine takes the baby, there didn't seem to be any secure buildings nearby. She just takes off into the wilderness. Even if she can avoid detection from walkers, what exactly is she going to feed the baby with? It has a very limited diet that isn't exactly easy to come by. A newborn of that age can die of starvation alot faster than someone of Clementine's age would. Its a suicide mission, plain and simple. You might as well ask random people from the street to fly over to Iraq and defeat ISIS once and for all. A noble yet almost impossible task that will most likely end in their deaths. Would they be selfish assholes to refuse such suicidal odds without even trying?
I never talked about your emotions, I talked about your delusion that you think you can save everybody everytime or think it's worth trying even if both die in the process. Please show me all these real people that pulled off such a darwin, I want to know them.
Couldn't you leave AJ at Wellington and go with Kenny? I don't know the other endings but I think it should have been possible. Because AJ will be safe to not forget that Clem and Kenny would have less of a burden.
I guess it's the same people that get children and are surprised afterwards how much work and pain in the ass a baby actually is.
I don't see many other explanations but that of great ignorance on that matter.
Yeah, sure, get rid of a baby, get rid of a pregnant woman, get rid of a girl that's not capable of defending herself. And after a while you start killing people over berries.
Where did you get 10 years from
On a similar note, did anyone else think that the "stick your tounge out" option was going to be more hateful instead of Clem just making a funny face to calm down the baby? Lol
Almost every walker (excepting those that are the result of dying by natural causes) is a person that wasn't able to fend for themselves. Most of those weren't saddled with the extra difficulty of caring for a newborn. So no, it's not easy to look after yourself and find safe spots when you need them, or it wouldn't be an apocalypse in the first place.
I'm not saying that one shouldn't make an effort. But once the mother is dead, the baby has essentially no chance. Even if you find a couple of caches of baby formula, you're going to need a constant supply. Also, I did a bit of research just now and it seems baby formula is not like powdered milk, that can essentially be stored indefinitely, it has a shelf life. A long one, but going on the second year of the apocalypse, it should have started going bad if not properly stored. So any baby formula you find is likely to be bad or cause complications.
And yes, everything does need a logical response. You just live in a society that has used logic to the point that many sacrifices are no longer necessary. You don't need to worry about getting water, because other people already used logic to figure out how to send it to every house. You don't need to worry about food, because other people already used logic to figure out how to produce and transport it. You don't need to think about electricity and fuel, because other people already used logic to figure out every challenge you are likely to face.
Once society breaks down and you don't have "other people" solving your problems for you, refusing to acknowledge those problems and think about them only puts you and everyone that cares about you at risk.
But never did I say you can save everyone every time. I said a person's life is always worth trying to save, at least unless they've actively attempted to kill you. Also, look in the news if you want real heroes. There's no need to mock them for helping others yet risking themselves though
As if Jane would let you stick 'it' with her.
Abandoning the baby....that was the only thing I liked about Jane. She would have had the "balls" to simply leave it behind. Would have done the same. It's only going to cause trouble and it's not even mine. Fuck it. You can hate me for this way of thinking all you want, it's still what I think.
oh i wish. because let's face it,this baby has no chance to survive. i wasn't even sad when they all thought it was dead. it's also dangerous to be outside with the baby because noise attracts the walkers and babies scream when they are hungry. i am actually wondering how it survived for 9 days when kenny and clem walked to wellington. it needs food. telltale logic at its finest. but i am sure we won't continue at the point where season 2 ended and a couple of months already passed at the start of season 3. maybe it's dead in season 3. i am also wondering how EVERYONE (except jane) wanted to keep the baby and was worried about it all the time. i thought they're smart enough to realize that this baby won't have a chance. it's sad how his parents died but that's no need to be blind about the fact that a baby's needs are hard to satisfy when zombies are walking around.
guess we have to see what telltale is up to.