As someone who is not a fan of babies, I'd abandon it in an instant. There is no obligation here.
You run out of formula, the baby dies in its sleep due to malnutrition, and next thing you know, you're getting chomped on by a zombie baby in your sleep.
Just as Kenny gets to see Katja and Duck again, AJ will meet Alvin and Rebecca and Carver in the afterlife.
Yes, you will have to raise children among walkers but it really only is plausible if you're in a decent sized group. Preferably, you would also have to have a permanent defendable shelter. If Clementine ends up alone, she has none of those things. Its just her and the baby. That's not dangerous, that's downright suicide. I'm not saying its not worth it to raise infants in a zombie apocalypse. I'm just saying there comes a point when the risk of raising that child is just far too high and that certainly seems to be the case if its just Clementine and the baby by themselves.
I just can't get it... I mean, yeah the baby is a problem BUT, someday humans will have to start making babies and have them live, otherwise… more the humanity is going to end. So, in my eyes, the "survivilist" stuff is just a way to end the world. Yeah, you survive and get another day living, so what?
I really think that, maybe the walkers just changed the food chain, humans WILL have to learn how to raise a child among walkers, think like the walkers are the predators, like animals who have very dangerous predators but they managed to find a way to live and continue their species, and someday being among walkers will be just a everyday stuff.
Okay, lets imagine you're Clementine for a second. Assume its just you and the baby. You're walking through the forest with the baby in hand. You see a group of walkers and devise a plan to sneak past them. Then suddenly, as you're sneaking past them, the baby starts crying. It alerts every walker in the vicinity. You try to run away and then suddenly there's a walker right infront of you. There's no way for you to get past him without killing him. How do you do that? Do you put the baby down or hold on to him with one hand and kill the walker with the other? Would you shoot the walker or use a melee weapon? Is an 11 year old girl capable of stabbing through a walker's head when she's carrying a baby? Is she able to put enough force into her attack? What if she shoots the walker instead? Won't the sound of gunfire harm the baby's ears? What if you accidentally drop the baby and the only choice is to run away or to try and save him despite the fact that dozens of walkers are coming at you from all directions. Would you have enough time to save the baby and not get bitten?
What would you feed the baby with? Where would you get baby formula or milk? How would you get food for yourself? Would you rely on fruits and things you can just pick off with your hands? Would you hunt? How would you hunt when you're carrying a baby? What if the baby gets ill or injured? How would you get any sleep with the baby constantly waking up and crying? How are you going to deal with the baby constantly drawing walkers to your location?
Having the baby isn't just "an added risk". Its a massive problem with deadly consequences. Do you honestly believe that everyone should be expected to go through such an enormous challenge? Is it really so horrible to hold more value to your own life than the life of an infant?
Abandon the baby? I can't possibly think of a context in which that would be okay to me. Is it an added risk? Sure, but so what? I'll gladly… more take on that added risk instead of abandoning a helpless baby to certain death. Even in the zombie apocalypse you still have to be able to live with yourself, and I don't think I'd be able to live with that.
Honestly, it is that horrible to me, yes. I fully realize that the baby would bring a slew of challenges and I don't know if I'd be able to solve those challenges, but I would sure as hell try, even if it killed me.
Okay, lets imagine you're Clementine for a second. Assume its just you and the baby. You're walking through the forest with the baby in hand… more. You see a group of walkers and devise a plan to sneak past them. Then suddenly, as you're sneaking past them, the baby starts crying. It alerts every walker in the vicinity. You try to run away and then suddenly there's a walker right infront of you. There's no way for you to get past him without killing him. How do you do that? Do you put the baby down or hold on to him with one hand and kill the walker with the other? Would you shoot the walker or use a melee weapon? Is an 11 year old girl capable of stabbing through a walker's head when she's carrying a baby? Is she able to put enough force into her attack? What if she shoots the walker instead? Won't the sound of gunfire harm the baby's ears? What if you accidentally drop the baby and the only choice is to run away or to try and save him despite the… [view original content]
I agree... this forum doesn't have even nearly enough vitriol already. I think an ostracization system should also be implemented where every day the community can vote for a forum member they want banned for a week.
Well you are able to save the baby or run for cover at the start of the episode and some people have left the baby out there on the snow. Its pretty sick lol
You sure about that? The game does give us a degree of control in deciding what kind of a person Clem really is. If we have the option of watching Carver get beaten to death in such a horrific fashion then I don't think it would be too out of character to allow Clementine to abandon the baby or atleast leave it in the care of someone else ( ie - Wellington). I mean come on, look at the sadistic face she makes as Carver's face gets bashed in. She enjoyed watching him die. She even has the option of admitting it in episode 5. Do you really think it would be unusual for a character like that to decline the massive responsibility of raising a child in a zombie apocalypse?
But what about all the decisions we get to make where Clementine acts ruthless or selfish? Do you really believe it would be too out of character to abandon the baby? We can watch Carver get his face bashed in just to satisfy our bloodlust. In one of the endings, a family with a child comes by and begs Clementine for help. We have the option of telling them to go screw themselves and we even point a gun at them in the process. In episode 3, Clementine has the option of saying that Kenny should be left behind because his injury would jeopardize their escape and safety. There are plenty of cases where Clementine can show that she places her own survival above everything else. Hell, even in episode 5, we repeatedly have the option of being unattached to the baby...
There is something people don't get when talking about Clementine's relationships.
You are not Clementine. There are no "forced" relation… moreships and no such thing as "your" Clementine.
Clementine is a developed character, just as Kenny, Jane, Luke etc are. Contrary to popular belief, you do not mold Clementine into your own image.
She has a defined personality, and you as the player are able to choose certain nuances in this personality. It was the same deal with Lee.
Clementine loved Lee. She felt a connection to Kenny. She feels responsible for AJ. These are all facts, not choices. This is Clementine.
Regarding the decision of leaving a baby behind, I can't really see the justification for it.
This is a zombie apocalypse, I get that. A baby is dangerous to have around and will most certainly get you killed at some point. So yes. You could leave it behind to die, and as a result you might live for a little while longer. But then … [view original content]
Then you could end up with people getting banned not because they were trolling but because their opinions happen to diverge from mainstream thought. If you want someone banned, report them and let the mods take care of it. The general forum population shouldn't be given too much power over deciding who should and shouldn't be allowed here. Also, the problem with dislikes is that people are quick to judge a post only by the number of likes and dislikes it has. They might not even read a post which has too many dislikes. instead they'll just assume it to be a troll post or something.
I agree... this forum doesn't have even nearly enough vitriol already. I think an ostracization system should also be implemented where every day the community can vote for a forum member they want banned for a week.
Sure, but my Clem didn't give a fuck about it in the first place.
Not everyone likes babies and not every female instantly develops motherly emotions in the sight of a small shit machine.
Sure, but my Clem didn't give a fuck about it in the first place.
Not everyone likes babies and not every female instantly develops motherly emotions in the sight of a small shit machine.
As someone who is not a fan of babies, I'd abandon it in an instant. There is no obligation here.
You run out of formula, the baby dies … morein its sleep due to malnutrition, and next thing you know, you're getting chomped on by a zombie baby in your sleep.
Just as Kenny gets to see Katja and Duck again, AJ will meet Alvin and Rebecca and Carver in the afterlife.
it would not change survival.not in the slightest.i would just have liked a option to give it to some kind of adoption.because IT IS too much for Clem.
Anyone whom abandons an innocent is a monster though, more if that innocent is given to you to protect. If no one protected us when we were babies we'd be screwed. But empathy seems to be lacking, people care only for themselves and want to ruin Clem by making her stereotypical lone wolf badass with no friends or any emotions, why not play a game you can fully roleplay in like DayZ for that?
Okay, lets imagine you're Clementine for a second. Assume its just you and the baby. You're walking through the forest with the baby in hand… more. You see a group of walkers and devise a plan to sneak past them. Then suddenly, as you're sneaking past them, the baby starts crying. It alerts every walker in the vicinity. You try to run away and then suddenly there's a walker right infront of you. There's no way for you to get past him without killing him. How do you do that? Do you put the baby down or hold on to him with one hand and kill the walker with the other? Would you shoot the walker or use a melee weapon? Is an 11 year old girl capable of stabbing through a walker's head when she's carrying a baby? Is she able to put enough force into her attack? What if she shoots the walker instead? Won't the sound of gunfire harm the baby's ears? What if you accidentally drop the baby and the only choice is to run away or to try and save him despite the… [view original content]
Abandoning a baby before it can even experience life or attempt to defend itself is a thing I hope Telltale never allow in TWDG. Any excuses don't mean anything really
As someone who is not a fan of babies, I'd abandon it in an instant. There is no obligation here.
You run out of formula, the baby dies … morein its sleep due to malnutrition, and next thing you know, you're getting chomped on by a zombie baby in your sleep.
Just as Kenny gets to see Katja and Duck again, AJ will meet Alvin and Rebecca and Carver in the afterlife.
for additional guilty pleasure bonus: I would allow sarah to survival and kick her and the baby out of the group....and let the nature takes its course.
Then you could end up with people getting banned not because they were trolling but because their opinions happen to diverge from mainstream… more thought. If you want someone banned, report them and let the mods take care of it. The general forum population shouldn't be given too much power over deciding who should and shouldn't be allowed here. Also, the problem with dislikes is that people are quick to judge a post only by the number of likes and dislikes it has. They might not even read a post which has too many dislikes. instead they'll just assume it to be a troll post or something.
I would have liked to give it to one of them too. The baby would probably die eventually anyway. In a zombie apocalypse it would be almost impossible to take care of, especially for an eleven year old girl.
I happen to agree with OP. I was not that thrilled to have to take Clem along in Season 1 with Lee. I get that it was supposed to be this dynamic thrilling relationship that pretty much sells the game so whatever. Plus now that she's older she has more value in a group or on her own. But a baby? I think there's a time and a place for starting a family and a zombie apocalypse ain't one of those times. It also seems VERY contrived and overdone. I can't think of a single zombie show/book/movie where they didn't stick a baby or pregnant woman in it. (Except for the original NOTLD but they did have a kid) It gets old. So the TTG twist is to force the kid to take care of the baby? Great.
As the OP tried to say, Clem trying to defend the baby and herself at the same time could easily end up with Clem dying and the baby being left to the walkers anyway...so then what? There's only so much she or anyone can do in that situation.Yes trying to keep humanity and save the species is something to aspire to but first you have to live. That calls for tough choices.
Ideally the baby could have been ditched at Wellington. Failing that, I think it's inevitable that esp if Clem is alone with it, they are both gonna die.
I only just finished the game. I held off on playing it until all the episodes were out, so I may be late to the party, but isn't this pretty much exactly what we are expected to assume happened to Christa's baby? I mean, Christa had the baby at some point in the 14 months skip, and didn't have it with her when we get separated. We don't get to learn what happened in those 14 months, and it's strange that Clem doesn't bring any of it up when AJ is born, but clearly Christa lost that baby somehow. A still birth is the best we can hope for, but considering Christa was healthy (physically) I find it unlikely. It would then stand to reason that it either died from exposure, malnutrition or in an accident, or they were overrun and couldn't save it.
Do you have empathy for every eukaryote out there as well because you are and have been one at one point in your life?
Nah, you don't, you even eat them on a regular basis, so please spare me that nonsense.
I have the same relation to a random human baby that I have to every other random higher mammalia: None
They are no greater beings, they are just people's manifestation of passing on their genes and I couldn't care less about their biological fitness. I care if they done me good, no matter if its a cat, a rodent or a stupid ape, but a human baby is inherently incapable of doing any good unless you consider shitting everywhere and being annoying for almost 20 years as anything good.
I'm sorry, but that hippie attitude won't get you far in that scenario. You will die and the baby with you, what's the point? You couldn't even feed it properly unless you're a human lactation wonder.
Extinction by stupidity? Hell yeah
Anyone whom abandons an innocent is a monster though, more if that innocent is given to you to protect. If no one protected us when we were … morebabies we'd be screwed. But empathy seems to be lacking, people care only for themselves and want to ruin Clem by making her stereotypical lone wolf badass with no friends or any emotions, why not play a game you can fully roleplay in like DayZ for that?
Abandoning a baby before it can even experience life or attempt to defend itself is a thing I hope Telltale never allow in TWDG. Any excuses don't mean anything really
By your view of morality, Clementine can already be considered a monster since we have the option of leaving the baby lying on the ground in the middle of that firefight in episode 5. We can choose to save ourselves instead of risking our life to save the baby. Consider the context of every situation and try not to rely on some romantic notion of Good and Evil. I'm not saying you should always abandon anyone who is a burden on you or your group. What I'm saying is that you need to thoroughly analyze the risks you're taking by bringing that person with you. What are your chances of success in actually keeping that person alive? Should every person be expected to take on such a ridiculous challenge? Are they really monsters because they are too frightened of accepting that responsibility? Is it really that horrible to save you own life instead of sending yourself into an almost certain death so that an innocent might live?
What if we were talking about killing innocents instead of abandoning innocents? I'm sure you would agree that killing innocents is wrong. The United States has a history of sending sending drones into Pakistan to take down terrorists. In the process however, they've killed plenty of innocent people, including children. Would you consider the people who send in these drones to be monsters because they killed innocent people? What about the fact that they killed a bunch of terrorists who themselves may have gone on to kill even more people later on? Even the raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound resulted in the death of what could be considered an innocent woman. Should Obama be considered a monster because his plan got a woman killed?
Anyone whom abandons an innocent is a monster though, more if that innocent is given to you to protect. If no one protected us when we were … morebabies we'd be screwed. But empathy seems to be lacking, people care only for themselves and want to ruin Clem by making her stereotypical lone wolf badass with no friends or any emotions, why not play a game you can fully roleplay in like DayZ for that?
The monstrous thing is leaving/killing both Jane and Kenny, that's what's monstrous. About the baby, well, first of all, you should have thought about the baby before you decided to have Jane and Kenny killed. Leaving with Jane offered the baby formula at Howe''s , and being with Kenny offered experience with taking care of the baby. And I don't think Clem would ever leave the baby, because that's not who she is, there are some things we, as players, can affect that have to do with Clementines character and personality, but taking care of the baby is cannon for her. The same was with Lee and Stranger, Lee killing the stranger was determinent, but his intention of killing him isn't, if you successfully finish the QTE, you don't get the option to stop strangling the Stranger, only to stop him from turning. The same thing is with Clem, too. Killing/leaving Jane and Kenny is determinent, but taking the baby isn't. It's who Clementine is, a caring and kind character. Just like Lee is a vengeful person, when it comes to Clem.
I don't get it, I said we were all a baby once, and if we hadn't been cared for we wouldn't be here now. Implying it's a dick move to deny a baby growing up just because you're a coward. I don't need someone to do me a favour before doing them a favour, if everyone thought like that there'd be no such thing as favours
Do you have empathy for every eukaryote out there as well because you are and have been one at one point in your life?
Nah, you don't, you … moreeven eat them on a regular basis, so please spare me that nonsense.
I have the same relation to a random human baby that I have to every other random higher mammalia: None
They are no greater beings, they are just people's manifestation of passing on their genes and I couldn't care less about their biological fitness. I care if they done me good, no matter if its a cat, a rodent or a stupid ape, but a human baby is inherently incapable of doing any good unless you consider shitting everywhere and being annoying for almost 20 years as anything good.
You're still saying hippie attitude? Odd, but yes, I would rather try than be a selfish coward dooming the human race that way. It doesn't guarantee success or failure, it simply means trying. The wannabe badass attitude is interesting though, you'd think people would learn that people like Shane have no one covering their backs, because they're too selfish to do the same for another
I'm sorry, but that hippie attitude won't get you far in that scenario. You will die and the baby with you, what's the point? You couldn't even feed it properly unless you're a human lactation wonder.
Extinction by stupidity? Hell yeah
It's not about having morals. It's about putting them above any reason. Those hippies are a perfect example of that. They eat plants, they wear plants, they (prolly) live in houses made of plants and yet they come there to cry about a stupid tree. They obviously don't even think that far and this is basically the result what happens if you ditch away any reason in favor of what you think is morally right.
Life obeys the rules of this universe, not the rules of an arbitrary moral system, and no matter how much this fact pisses you off, you can't change it and have to act accordingly in order to survive.
Judging by your posts, it seems that you don't realize that.
That baby was the sole remnant of the Season 2 group. Just like Clem was the sole remnant of the Season 1 group. It makes thematic sense for them to be paired up no matter what. But who knows. Maybe we'll end up having the choose between them at the end of Season 3.
Comments
I kinda would've. Kenny destroyed that fucking group because of the baby. Leave the baby with Kenny and take off with Mike, Bonnie, Arvo, and Jane.
The group had something beautiful..
You don't need to have a baby to care about babies though
As someone who is not a fan of babies, I'd abandon it in an instant. There is no obligation here.
You run out of formula, the baby dies in its sleep due to malnutrition, and next thing you know, you're getting chomped on by a zombie baby in your sleep.
Just as Kenny gets to see Katja and Duck again, AJ will meet Alvin and Rebecca and Carver in the afterlife.
Yes, you will have to raise children among walkers but it really only is plausible if you're in a decent sized group. Preferably, you would also have to have a permanent defendable shelter. If Clementine ends up alone, she has none of those things. Its just her and the baby. That's not dangerous, that's downright suicide. I'm not saying its not worth it to raise infants in a zombie apocalypse. I'm just saying there comes a point when the risk of raising that child is just far too high and that certainly seems to be the case if its just Clementine and the baby by themselves.
Okay, lets imagine you're Clementine for a second. Assume its just you and the baby. You're walking through the forest with the baby in hand. You see a group of walkers and devise a plan to sneak past them. Then suddenly, as you're sneaking past them, the baby starts crying. It alerts every walker in the vicinity. You try to run away and then suddenly there's a walker right infront of you. There's no way for you to get past him without killing him. How do you do that? Do you put the baby down or hold on to him with one hand and kill the walker with the other? Would you shoot the walker or use a melee weapon? Is an 11 year old girl capable of stabbing through a walker's head when she's carrying a baby? Is she able to put enough force into her attack? What if she shoots the walker instead? Won't the sound of gunfire harm the baby's ears? What if you accidentally drop the baby and the only choice is to run away or to try and save him despite the fact that dozens of walkers are coming at you from all directions. Would you have enough time to save the baby and not get bitten?
What would you feed the baby with? Where would you get baby formula or milk? How would you get food for yourself? Would you rely on fruits and things you can just pick off with your hands? Would you hunt? How would you hunt when you're carrying a baby? What if the baby gets ill or injured? How would you get any sleep with the baby constantly waking up and crying? How are you going to deal with the baby constantly drawing walkers to your location?
Having the baby isn't just "an added risk". Its a massive problem with deadly consequences. Do you honestly believe that everyone should be expected to go through such an enormous challenge? Is it really so horrible to hold more value to your own life than the life of an infant?
for my guilty pleasure...yes...i wanted the walkers to eat that baby like it was a buffet.
It's in Clem's nature to lookout and protect, so this option would never ever be available after S2E5. Not even to protect her life.
Honestly, it is that horrible to me, yes. I fully realize that the baby would bring a slew of challenges and I don't know if I'd be able to solve those challenges, but I would sure as hell try, even if it killed me.
I agree... this forum doesn't have even nearly enough vitriol already. I think an ostracization system should also be implemented where every day the community can vote for a forum member they want banned for a week.
Well you are able to save the baby or run for cover at the start of the episode and some people have left the baby out there on the snow. Its pretty sick lol
You sure about that? The game does give us a degree of control in deciding what kind of a person Clem really is. If we have the option of watching Carver get beaten to death in such a horrific fashion then I don't think it would be too out of character to allow Clementine to abandon the baby or atleast leave it in the care of someone else ( ie - Wellington). I mean come on, look at the sadistic face she makes as Carver's face gets bashed in. She enjoyed watching him die. She even has the option of admitting it in episode 5. Do you really think it would be unusual for a character like that to decline the massive responsibility of raising a child in a zombie apocalypse?
But what about all the decisions we get to make where Clementine acts ruthless or selfish? Do you really believe it would be too out of character to abandon the baby? We can watch Carver get his face bashed in just to satisfy our bloodlust. In one of the endings, a family with a child comes by and begs Clementine for help. We have the option of telling them to go screw themselves and we even point a gun at them in the process. In episode 3, Clementine has the option of saying that Kenny should be left behind because his injury would jeopardize their escape and safety. There are plenty of cases where Clementine can show that she places her own survival above everything else. Hell, even in episode 5, we repeatedly have the option of being unattached to the baby...
Then you could end up with people getting banned not because they were trolling but because their opinions happen to diverge from mainstream thought. If you want someone banned, report them and let the mods take care of it. The general forum population shouldn't be given too much power over deciding who should and shouldn't be allowed here. Also, the problem with dislikes is that people are quick to judge a post only by the number of likes and dislikes it has. They might not even read a post which has too many dislikes. instead they'll just assume it to be a troll post or something.
Sure, but my Clem didn't give a fuck about it in the first place.
Not everyone likes babies and not every female instantly develops motherly emotions in the sight of a small shit machine.
I just have no idea how any person can lack basic empathy for a thing we all were at one point in our lives. It's scary really
Lets be honest here. Baby Alvie couldn't do jack shit. He doesn't even have teeth. What? Gonna gum Clem to death?
it would not change survival.not in the slightest.i would just have liked a option to give it to some kind of adoption.because IT IS too much for Clem.
Anyone whom abandons an innocent is a monster though, more if that innocent is given to you to protect. If no one protected us when we were babies we'd be screwed. But empathy seems to be lacking, people care only for themselves and want to ruin Clem by making her stereotypical lone wolf badass with no friends or any emotions, why not play a game you can fully roleplay in like DayZ for that?
Abandoning a baby before it can even experience life or attempt to defend itself is a thing I hope Telltale never allow in TWDG. Any excuses don't mean anything really
for additional guilty pleasure bonus: I would allow sarah to survival and kick her and the baby out of the group....and let the nature takes its course.
I don't think this dude is a troll or should be banned though. He hasn't broken any rules and he's just simply stating an opinion.
I would have liked to give it to one of them too. The baby would probably die eventually anyway. In a zombie apocalypse it would be almost impossible to take care of, especially for an eleven year old girl.
I happen to agree with OP. I was not that thrilled to have to take Clem along in Season 1 with Lee. I get that it was supposed to be this dynamic thrilling relationship that pretty much sells the game so whatever. Plus now that she's older she has more value in a group or on her own. But a baby? I think there's a time and a place for starting a family and a zombie apocalypse ain't one of those times. It also seems VERY contrived and overdone. I can't think of a single zombie show/book/movie where they didn't stick a baby or pregnant woman in it. (Except for the original NOTLD but they did have a kid) It gets old. So the TTG twist is to force the kid to take care of the baby? Great.
As the OP tried to say, Clem trying to defend the baby and herself at the same time could easily end up with Clem dying and the baby being left to the walkers anyway...so then what? There's only so much she or anyone can do in that situation.Yes trying to keep humanity and save the species is something to aspire to but first you have to live. That calls for tough choices.
Ideally the baby could have been ditched at Wellington. Failing that, I think it's inevitable that esp if Clem is alone with it, they are both gonna die.
It would have been too sinful for her to do that. #MyClementine and all, but she can't be made to be a bad person.
I only just finished the game. I held off on playing it until all the episodes were out, so I may be late to the party, but isn't this pretty much exactly what we are expected to assume happened to Christa's baby? I mean, Christa had the baby at some point in the 14 months skip, and didn't have it with her when we get separated. We don't get to learn what happened in those 14 months, and it's strange that Clem doesn't bring any of it up when AJ is born, but clearly Christa lost that baby somehow. A still birth is the best we can hope for, but considering Christa was healthy (physically) I find it unlikely. It would then stand to reason that it either died from exposure, malnutrition or in an accident, or they were overrun and couldn't save it.
"God damn baby killer!"
I kind of thought that was where the game was heading when you were stuck in the car with Jane.
Do you have empathy for every eukaryote out there as well because you are and have been one at one point in your life?
Nah, you don't, you even eat them on a regular basis, so please spare me that nonsense.
I have the same relation to a random human baby that I have to every other random higher mammalia: None
They are no greater beings, they are just people's manifestation of passing on their genes and I couldn't care less about their biological fitness. I care if they done me good, no matter if its a cat, a rodent or a stupid ape, but a human baby is inherently incapable of doing any good unless you consider shitting everywhere and being annoying for almost 20 years as anything good.
I'm sorry, but that hippie attitude won't get you far in that scenario. You will die and the baby with you, what's the point? You couldn't even feed it properly unless you're a human lactation wonder.
Extinction by stupidity? Hell yeah
I fathom you are one of these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G880gxjj9dI
Lmao, sure. If having morals or being human makes someone a hippie to you, that's hilarious
By your view of morality, Clementine can already be considered a monster since we have the option of leaving the baby lying on the ground in the middle of that firefight in episode 5. We can choose to save ourselves instead of risking our life to save the baby. Consider the context of every situation and try not to rely on some romantic notion of Good and Evil. I'm not saying you should always abandon anyone who is a burden on you or your group. What I'm saying is that you need to thoroughly analyze the risks you're taking by bringing that person with you. What are your chances of success in actually keeping that person alive? Should every person be expected to take on such a ridiculous challenge? Are they really monsters because they are too frightened of accepting that responsibility? Is it really that horrible to save you own life instead of sending yourself into an almost certain death so that an innocent might live?
What if we were talking about killing innocents instead of abandoning innocents? I'm sure you would agree that killing innocents is wrong. The United States has a history of sending sending drones into Pakistan to take down terrorists. In the process however, they've killed plenty of innocent people, including children. Would you consider the people who send in these drones to be monsters because they killed innocent people? What about the fact that they killed a bunch of terrorists who themselves may have gone on to kill even more people later on? Even the raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound resulted in the death of what could be considered an innocent woman. Should Obama be considered a monster because his plan got a woman killed?
The monstrous thing is leaving/killing both Jane and Kenny, that's what's monstrous. About the baby, well, first of all, you should have thought about the baby before you decided to have Jane and Kenny killed. Leaving with Jane offered the baby formula at Howe''s , and being with Kenny offered experience with taking care of the baby. And I don't think Clem would ever leave the baby, because that's not who she is, there are some things we, as players, can affect that have to do with Clementines character and personality, but taking care of the baby is cannon for her. The same was with Lee and Stranger, Lee killing the stranger was determinent, but his intention of killing him isn't, if you successfully finish the QTE, you don't get the option to stop strangling the Stranger, only to stop him from turning. The same thing is with Clem, too. Killing/leaving Jane and Kenny is determinent, but taking the baby isn't. It's who Clementine is, a caring and kind character. Just like Lee is a vengeful person, when it comes to Clem.
So, yeah, there's that
The baby is the next generation. Without them, humans would become extinct in due time...
I don't get it, I said we were all a baby once, and if we hadn't been cared for we wouldn't be here now. Implying it's a dick move to deny a baby growing up just because you're a coward. I don't need someone to do me a favour before doing them a favour, if everyone thought like that there'd be no such thing as favours
You're still saying hippie attitude? Odd, but yes, I would rather try than be a selfish coward dooming the human race that way. It doesn't guarantee success or failure, it simply means trying. The wannabe badass attitude is interesting though, you'd think people would learn that people like Shane have no one covering their backs, because they're too selfish to do the same for another
It's not about having morals. It's about putting them above any reason. Those hippies are a perfect example of that. They eat plants, they wear plants, they (prolly) live in houses made of plants and yet they come there to cry about a stupid tree. They obviously don't even think that far and this is basically the result what happens if you ditch away any reason in favor of what you think is morally right.
Life obeys the rules of this universe, not the rules of an arbitrary moral system, and no matter how much this fact pisses you off, you can't change it and have to act accordingly in order to survive.
Judging by your posts, it seems that you don't realize that.
No fucking way. I could never abandon a baby, and I don't think Clem could either.
Yes i wanted the choice. I wouldnt take that choice though, but i can understand why some people would.
But i suppose AJ is a huge deal in s3.
That baby was the sole remnant of the Season 2 group. Just like Clem was the sole remnant of the Season 1 group. It makes thematic sense for them to be paired up no matter what. But who knows. Maybe we'll end up having the choose between them at the end of Season 3.