People keep bringing the whole "raising the baby is canon to Clementine's character, she would never part with him!". If that really were the case then we wouldn't have gotten the option at the beginning of episode 5 to either save the baby or run for cover. Clementine has the option of putting her own safety above that of the baby. We weren't forced to save the baby no matter what. Even after that, we have the option of deciding how close Clementine wants to be to the baby. There are several cases in the episode where Clementine can act as if she doesn't care too much about the baby.
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 tho… moreught 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… [view original content]
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 morals. 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 or government, is wrong if they can't defend themselves. Thanks for not being offensive like the other person though, I do get what you're saying, I just hope as much as it would be an interesting option, that Telltale won't make Clem abandon her morality completely though, or don't force it as canon at least, variety is good ofc
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… more 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 ta… [view original content]
Yeah, you see. It was my parents that cared for me, not a random stranger and they didn't do it because they are such ethically high moral beings (nope, definitely not). Breeding children is an inherently selfish act, from the beginning of the process until the very end of them reproducing as well.
The favor-for-favor game (or tit-for-tat) is a bit more complex than that. You can choose yourself how often and how much you will put trust into someone else that hasn't done you a favor yet (as you pointed out correctly, someone HAS to start), but I am done as soon as I notice that I don't get anything back (that point I choose as well). Else you will just attract leeches of all sorts and that's nothing you want to have; unless you have serious mental problems. If you really are that kind of a person, well, congratulations, you are bound to have a wonderful time with false snakes and will probably never have any real founded relationships on mutual respect and friendship.
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… more 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
Raising a baby should be done in a scenario where its actually plausible. Such as when you are part of a group and/or live in a secure shelter. An 11 year old girl raising a baby by herself in the middle of a zombie apocalypse has more chances of harming the next generation race than it does to benefit it. The chances of Clementine and the baby dying are far higher than the chances of them both surviving. Without the baby, you have a pretty decent chance of atleast Clementine surviving into adulthood and potentially being added to humanity's list of fertile females should she ever be interested in that.
"Anyone else wanted the option to abandon the baby?"
No. My Clem is alone with him, too. I don't play her as a cold pragmatist, a coward or a sociopath, so she's willing to do everything she can for him even though it's going to be unreasonably tough. I'm sure Telltale will find a way to tear her (mine) heart out again but fuck it. If Clementine reaches a point where a defenseless baby who's lost his parents is nothing but an annoying *thing * that can just be passed on to an unsuitable caretaker or abandoned because it's inconvenient or too risky, then she's a character I no longer want to play. Also, from a storytelling perspective, AJ's presence heightens drama, which is only a good thing for a narrative.
Who says she needs to care "too much", Clem doesn't even have to be close to this baby if she doesn't want to, she just needs to care enough to keep this baby alive, and that is the cannon Clementine. Just like Lee in s1, he can be a real jerk to her sometimes, but in the end he risks his life and dies to protect her, to keep her alive. That's why at the end there are all these groups, and Lee is in each and every one of them. Just like at the end of ep 5 there are all these groups and Clem and the baby are in each and every one of them ( wellington, team kenny, team jane, team jane + family, Clem + baby alone). I honestly don't know why TT put that option, and then at the end of the episode even if you go alone, the baby is with you. Bad writing ? If you don't go for the baby, then you're saying : I care about Clem's safety more than that baby, but at the end it turns out Clem cares about the baby's safety more than her own, she could have just dropped the baby when she saw the herd, because that baby is definitely gonna start crying when it hears zombies making those sounds. So, yeah IDK about that choice of saving the baby, going for the cover, in the end it doesn't matter I guess
People keep bringing the whole "raising the baby is canon to Clementine's character, she would never part with him!". If that really were th… moree case then we wouldn't have gotten the option at the beginning of episode 5 to either save the baby or run for cover. Clementine has the option of putting her own safety above that of the baby. We weren't forced to save the baby no matter what. Even after that, we have the option of deciding how close Clementine wants to be to the baby. There are several cases in the episode where Clementine can act as if she doesn't care too much about the baby.
Human race...do you really care about such a stupid concept? And simply trying without evaluating success or failure, is just plain stupidity. It's the acting of a madman, of someone like Kenny. "Let's try, no matter how fucking stupid."
It's not about "wannabe badass", it's just about a reasonable approach to seriously difficult problems instead of stumbling blindly into them and die.
You are talking of "covering their backs", how does a baby cover YOUR back?
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 g… moreuarantee 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
How do you decide what's good and bad though? Do you think theft is wrong? What if a person in a third world country is forced to steal because its the only option he had at the time to feed his children? What if he needed the money so badly at that point that his children could literally die within the next day without it? Is it suddenly okay to be a thief in this scenario? What if the person he stole from needed the money just as badly? Who's right and who's wrong? Is it possible for something to be wrong in any situation no matter what?
But shouldn't abandoning the baby in the initial firefight be considered just as monstrous as abandoning it in general? I know that there are certain things that we will never be able to do yet we are still given considerable choice in deciding what kind of a person Clementine is. We can have her watch Carver get his face bashed in. We can have her refuse to share any food with Sam in episode 1. We can abandon Sarah to the walkers without putting much effort into saving her. We can suggest to abandon Kenny in episode 3 due to his injury. We are constantly given choices where Clementine can place her own safety above that of other people. With all these choices, I don't find it too unrealistic for Clementine to be given the option of abandoning the baby. Sometimes, you don't need to try and save someone to know that they simply can't be saved or that the risks of saving them are almost certain to lead to your own death.
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]
But what about the choice at the beginning of episode 5 where we decide to either save the baby or to run for cover? We can choose to abandon the baby at that point because there is too much risk associated with his rescue. We can leave him lying on the ground in the middle of a firefight knowing full well that it could easily lead to his death. Is she still a character you want to play?
"Anyone else wanted the option to abandon the baby?"
No. My Clem is alone with him, too. I don't play her as a cold pragmatist, a coward … moreor a sociopath, so she's willing to do everything she can for him even though it's going to be unreasonably tough. I'm sure Telltale will find a way to tear her (mine) heart out again but fuck it. If Clementine reaches a point where a defenseless baby who's lost his parents is nothing but an annoying *thing * that can just be passed on to an unsuitable caretaker or abandoned because it's inconvenient or too risky, then she's a character I no longer want to play. Also, from a storytelling perspective, AJ's presence heightens drama, which is only a good thing for a narrative.
PLUS HE'S FUCKING ADORABLE
Exactly, so if the baby has no parents it's a dick move and cowardly to abandon it as the same could've happened to you. Good job on judging though, I didn't say I do favours for people even if they never help back
Yeah, you see. It was my parents that cared for me, not a random stranger and they didn't do it because they are such ethically high moral b… moreeings (nope, definitely not). Breeding children is an inherently selfish act, from the beginning of the process until the very end of them reproducing as well.
The favor-for-favor game (or tit-for-tat) is a bit more complex than that. You can choose yourself how often and how much you will put trust into someone else that hasn't done you a favor yet (as you pointed out correctly, someone HAS to start), but I am done as soon as I notice that I don't get anything back (that point I choose as well). Else you will just attract leeches of all sorts and that's nothing you want to have; unless you have serious mental problems. If you really are that kind of a person, well, congratulations, you are bound to have a wonderful time with false snakes and will probably never have any real founded relationships on mutual respect and friendship.
If you don't care about it that's just sad. Who says without evaluating? I'm a methodical person and I'd try it because it's worth trying. If you lack that care for a life then Idk what to say. I mean in general, if you act lone wolf and talk of burden this and abandon that, your hypothetical group or strangers won't help you, because they know you'd do shiz for them
Human race...do you really care about such a stupid concept? And simply trying without evaluating success or failure, is just plain stupidit… morey. It's the acting of a madman, of someone like Kenny. "Let's try, no matter how fucking stupid."
It's not about "wannabe badass", it's just about a reasonable approach to seriously difficult problems instead of stumbling blindly into them and die.
You are talking of "covering their backs", how does a baby cover YOUR back?
Even if I did leave a child, living wouldn't be worth it. I'd just live the rest of my life in regret and depression. Even though, I'd probably already be depressed due to the zombies and all
You seem to think that we should all be cynical pessimist assholes, we've evolved to the point that we can question instincts and use morals, deal with that, morals have saved people as have instincts and the two coexist. But by all means just be the kind of person to not question anything because "That's how it is" or whatever you like
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 w… moreear 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.
Exactly, so if the baby has no parents it's a dick move and cowardly to abandon it as the same could've happened to you. Good job on judging though, I didn't say I do favours for people even if they never help back
Yes, that makes sense, I clearly didn't know the meaning. Good job though, bottom line just proved there's no need for debate, you lack basic empathy found in most humans
No, it's not sad, it's what >99,9% of humans do. They don't care about "humanity", doesn't matter if they think they do (there's a lot of self-deception in this matter though).
A group of strangers that doesn't look after how to feed their mouths and invites everybody in (useless or not), is a group that doesn't live for long. Even the lovely folks at Wellington were not that stupid, that's why they denied new entries at that time cause they didn't have the supply for everyone. So they did the only reasonable thing, they closed off. You can have babies all you want if you can afford it, but if you don't it's just suicidal and if you are scarce on supplies, it's stupid not to cut it short for people who are not going to contribute to the overall survival of the group. You can then watch your whole group starving to death or more likely, they will start to fight and break up eventually.
If that's what you want, fine, go for it, I don't see the point just to feel so "humane" and "high moral".
If you don't care about it that's just sad. Who says without evaluating? I'm a methodical person and I'd try it because it's worth trying. I… moref you lack that care for a life then Idk what to say. I mean in general, if you act lone wolf and talk of burden this and abandon that, your hypothetical group or strangers won't help you, because they know you'd do shiz for them
No, I just don't have that megalomaniac complex of yours to think I can save everybody's sorry ass on this planet.
You're talking from a point of view that assumes cuddly, warmy omnipotency, but that's nothing you can apply to the real world EVER and the really sad thing is, that I am quite sure you will NOT act like you want me to believe you will; because you are not omnipotent, you WILL have to make a decision and you will NOT decide against your own good if you have any sanity left.
That's why ZA is such a funny scenario, cause it will force people like you to act against the image they made of themselves.
Yes, that makes sense, I clearly didn't know the meaning. Good job though, bottom line just proved there's no need for debate, you lack basic empathy found in most humans
Cynicism and reason are two different things, although cynics tend to be more reasonable than average people.
I was never talking of instincts, I was talking of the necessities of life that are dictated by the universe. You can NOT overrule them, no matter how hard you want that to be true. People are not cynical pessimist assholes to accept that little fact, sorry.
You seem to think that we should all be cynical pessimist assholes, we've evolved to the point that we can question instincts and use morals… more, deal with that, morals have saved people as have instincts and the two coexist. But by all means just be the kind of person to not question anything because "That's how it is" or whatever you like
Well yeah, lots of things aren't set in stone as good/bad, but we're talking about abandoning a baby here. I like to think all the options that are presented on screen are the thoughts that cross Clementine's mind, and I don't think she would do anything other than act on instinct and protect the child
How do you decide what's good and bad though? Do you think theft is wrong? What if a person in a third world country is forced to steal beca… moreuse its the only option he had at the time to feed his children? What if he needed the money so badly at that point that his children could literally die within the next day without it? Is it suddenly okay to be a thief in this scenario? What if the person he stole from needed the money just as badly? Who's right and who's wrong? Is it possible for something to be wrong in any situation no matter what?
Do you also cry to your sleep every evening by the thought of how many animals and humans you killed directly or indirectly with your buying decisions? Nope? Thought so....
Even if I did leave a child, living wouldn't be worth it. I'd just live the rest of my life in regret and depression. Even though, I'd probably already be depressed due to the zombies and all
You really learn a lot about people with questions like this. It was the same watching the show. After some hard choice the characters had to make, half the fanbase would argue for it and half against it.
Nah, you really don't. You just see some extreme (and fictive) examples, but most people will never be in a situation that tests their self-proclaimed morals and beliefs, so you get little out of what they say about it.
You really learn a lot about people with questions like this. It was the same watching the show. After some hard choice the characters had to make, half the fanbase would argue for it and half against it.
That wasnt forced. It was relief and the fact that she was attached to the baby and fond of him. We saw that with her interactions with him. She thought he was dead a minute before that. How did you think she would react?
As much as I hate to admit it but I was waiting for the choice to pop up in episode 5 and I probably would have taken it. If you have sophisticated way of ensuring the babies and your safety (because if you die the baby is dead too if you're not part of a community/group), than yes of course keep the kid and raise it to the best of your abilities. But the numbers at the end didn't play in that favor.
Well, that's your interpretation. Of course most likely none of us are going to be in these extreme situations, but you do learn a lot about a person's mindset. Your responses in these threads said a lot about you. Was none of that how you really think?
Nah, you really don't. You just see some extreme (and fictive) examples, but most people will never be in a situation that tests their self-proclaimed morals and beliefs, so you get little out of what they say about it.
Do you also cry to your sleep every evening by the thought of how many animals and humans you killed directly or indirectly with your buying decisions? Nope? Thought so....
I have no idea why the hell Clem didn't just go around the herd.
I just don't get it. There clearly is enough space to just go around, and not risk her and the baby's life by walking straight through.
Having to walk 10 more minutes beats getting eaten alive in my books.
But think about it. All that constant crying will keep drawing walkers and if walkers do come, how is Clem supposed to fight them while look… moreing out for the baby? The scene at the end where she just walks through the walker herd with the baby was a little dumb imo. What if the baby starts crying? The walkers will be able to tell that he's a human and not a zombie. Hell, even in episode 4, Jane constantly tells everyone to keep quiet to prevent the walkers from detecting them. Surviving alone is dangerous enough. Trying to survive with a baby is downright suicide. I don't see how it makes you a douche to not wanna go through with such a ridiculously dangerous task. Its pretty human imo. i mean if we had a group then its plausible to look after baby. But when you're by yourself? I mean come on, its unrealistic to assume that everyone should be up to that task...
To be completely honest I think most of the people here who claim they would never do anything like that. Would think quite differently if they were put really in the same situation.
About Clem sacrificing herself to "safe" the baby would always depend on the situation. Can you ensure that if you die the baby has a bigger chance of survival for the next months? As long as that wouldn't be a given any death like that would be just silly.
To be completely honest I think most of the people here who claim they would never do anything like that. Would think quite differently if t… morehey were put really in the same situation.
About Clem sacrificing herself to "safe" the baby would always depend on the situation. Can you ensure that if you die the baby has a bigger chance of survival for the next months? As long as that wouldn't be a given any death like that would be just silly.
Honestly, the option would have been nice for the people who wanted to get rid of AJ, I would have kept him, but it does feel like another forced option to like him just like Kenny. I probably would have gone with Bonnie, Mike and Arvo to escape Kenny to be honest, but the plot makes it look like you have a strong bond with him, so I had to stick with him.
You gotta have something to fight for or else what's the point in surviving. The way I see it is that Clementine was taken care of by Omid, Christa, and Lee even though they were complete strangers to her and they knew she was just a little girl that could be a huge liability in terms of survival. Clementine is now doing the same with AJ even though knowing it might be tougher in her situation. The option to abandon the baby would be like the option to abandon Clementine, because it might be too hard or it could get you killed. I understand one is a baby and Clem is a little girl that can learn and perform tasks, but the concept remains the same Clementine just can't leave someone if they are helpless. It may be worthwhile to keep AJ, because of how great Clementine turned out.
I guess I'd want this choice just to have it (and maybe do it in my psycho playhtrough), but remember it's not you there, but Clem. Clem and Lee are not empty shells, but characters. You make the important choices, but it's never something Clem or Lee wouldn't say or do.
That's why you can shoot Kenny when he attacks Jane, and not after he beats Arvo or some other time when he pisses you of. Maybe if you where in that situation, and you hated Kenny enough, you would've killed him, but Clem wouldn't. The same applies to the baby. Survival or no survival, she can't leave a newborn to die. You wanted to leave Alvin Jr, but she couldn't, so it wasn't a choice. That's how I see it, at least.
That might be true for your Clementine but you can't just assume that everyone's Clementine would act the same way. Clementine doesn't have a canon set personality. We have considerable control over her personality.The Clementine who watches Carver get his face bashed in is a very different person than the one who begs Kenny not to kill him. I mean you can certainly have your Clementine do whatever it takes to defend the baby but the fact is, we've already been given an option where we can choose our own safety over the safety of the baby. At the very beginning of episode 5, Clementine can choose to save her own skin and run for cover. In the process, she leaves the baby lying on the ground in the middle of a firefight, knowing full well that it could easily lead to his death.
Well yeah, lots of things aren't set in stone as good/bad, but we're talking about abandoning a baby here. I like to think all the options t… morehat are presented on screen are the thoughts that cross Clementine's mind, and I don't think she would do anything other than act on instinct and protect the child
That's a choice. I like having those kinds of dilemmas presented, they're the heart of the game. Sorry, I see that I had misread your topic question as "Anyone else wanted to abandon the baby?" and mostly skipped to your rationale for abandoning AJ. It was late, I fucked up. Yeah, I'm cool with having an option. The temptation to sacrifice your humanity for survival is what TWD is all about. I would just find a Clem like that despicable.
But what about the choice at the beginning of episode 5 where we decide to either save the baby or to run for cover? We can choose to abando… moren the baby at that point because there is too much risk associated with his rescue. We can leave him lying on the ground in the middle of a firefight knowing full well that it could easily lead to his death. Is she still a character you want to play?
I wasn't suggesting to leave him because I don't like him. I was suggesting to leave him because the alternative would almost certainly lead to Clementine's death if she didn't have the all-mighty protection of plot armor. The chances of an 11 year old successfully raising a baby by herself in a zombie apocalypse are about as high as some random joe from the street attempting to break someone out of Gitmo...
Comments
People keep bringing the whole "raising the baby is canon to Clementine's character, she would never part with him!". If that really were the case then we wouldn't have gotten the option at the beginning of episode 5 to either save the baby or run for cover. Clementine has the option of putting her own safety above that of the baby. We weren't forced to save the baby no matter what. Even after that, we have the option of deciding how close Clementine wants to be to the baby. There are several cases in the episode where Clementine can act as if she doesn't care too much about the baby.
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 morals. 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 or government, is wrong if they can't defend themselves. Thanks for not being offensive like the other person though, I do get what you're saying, I just hope as much as it would be an interesting option, that Telltale won't make Clem abandon her morality completely though, or don't force it as canon at least, variety is good ofc
Yeah, you see. It was my parents that cared for me, not a random stranger and they didn't do it because they are such ethically high moral beings (nope, definitely not). Breeding children is an inherently selfish act, from the beginning of the process until the very end of them reproducing as well.
The favor-for-favor game (or tit-for-tat) is a bit more complex than that. You can choose yourself how often and how much you will put trust into someone else that hasn't done you a favor yet (as you pointed out correctly, someone HAS to start), but I am done as soon as I notice that I don't get anything back (that point I choose as well). Else you will just attract leeches of all sorts and that's nothing you want to have; unless you have serious mental problems. If you really are that kind of a person, well, congratulations, you are bound to have a wonderful time with false snakes and will probably never have any real founded relationships on mutual respect and friendship.
Raising a baby should be done in a scenario where its actually plausible. Such as when you are part of a group and/or live in a secure shelter. An 11 year old girl raising a baby by herself in the middle of a zombie apocalypse has more chances of harming the next generation race than it does to benefit it. The chances of Clementine and the baby dying are far higher than the chances of them both surviving. Without the baby, you have a pretty decent chance of atleast Clementine surviving into adulthood and potentially being added to humanity's list of fertile females should she ever be interested in that.
"Anyone else wanted the option to abandon the baby?"
No. My Clem is alone with him, too. I don't play her as a cold pragmatist, a coward or a sociopath, so she's willing to do everything she can for him even though it's going to be unreasonably tough. I'm sure Telltale will find a way to tear her (mine) heart out again but fuck it. If Clementine reaches a point where a defenseless baby who's lost his parents is nothing but an annoying *thing * that can just be passed on to an unsuitable caretaker or abandoned because it's inconvenient or too risky, then she's a character I no longer want to play. Also, from a storytelling perspective, AJ's presence heightens drama, which is only a good thing for a narrative.
PLUS HE'S FUCKING ADORABLE
Who says she needs to care "too much", Clem doesn't even have to be close to this baby if she doesn't want to, she just needs to care enough to keep this baby alive, and that is the cannon Clementine. Just like Lee in s1, he can be a real jerk to her sometimes, but in the end he risks his life and dies to protect her, to keep her alive. That's why at the end there are all these groups, and Lee is in each and every one of them. Just like at the end of ep 5 there are all these groups and Clem and the baby are in each and every one of them ( wellington, team kenny, team jane, team jane + family, Clem + baby alone). I honestly don't know why TT put that option, and then at the end of the episode even if you go alone, the baby is with you. Bad writing ? If you don't go for the baby, then you're saying : I care about Clem's safety more than that baby, but at the end it turns out Clem cares about the baby's safety more than her own, she could have just dropped the baby when she saw the herd, because that baby is definitely gonna start crying when it hears zombies making those sounds. So, yeah IDK about that choice of saving the baby, going for the cover, in the end it doesn't matter I guess
Human race...do you really care about such a stupid concept? And simply trying without evaluating success or failure, is just plain stupidity. It's the acting of a madman, of someone like Kenny. "Let's try, no matter how fucking stupid."
It's not about "wannabe badass", it's just about a reasonable approach to seriously difficult problems instead of stumbling blindly into them and die.
You are talking of "covering their backs", how does a baby cover YOUR back?
How do you decide what's good and bad though? Do you think theft is wrong? What if a person in a third world country is forced to steal because its the only option he had at the time to feed his children? What if he needed the money so badly at that point that his children could literally die within the next day without it? Is it suddenly okay to be a thief in this scenario? What if the person he stole from needed the money just as badly? Who's right and who's wrong? Is it possible for something to be wrong in any situation no matter what?
But shouldn't abandoning the baby in the initial firefight be considered just as monstrous as abandoning it in general? I know that there are certain things that we will never be able to do yet we are still given considerable choice in deciding what kind of a person Clementine is. We can have her watch Carver get his face bashed in. We can have her refuse to share any food with Sam in episode 1. We can abandon Sarah to the walkers without putting much effort into saving her. We can suggest to abandon Kenny in episode 3 due to his injury. We are constantly given choices where Clementine can place her own safety above that of other people. With all these choices, I don't find it too unrealistic for Clementine to be given the option of abandoning the baby. Sometimes, you don't need to try and save someone to know that they simply can't be saved or that the risks of saving them are almost certain to lead to your own death.
But what about the choice at the beginning of episode 5 where we decide to either save the baby or to run for cover? We can choose to abandon the baby at that point because there is too much risk associated with his rescue. We can leave him lying on the ground in the middle of a firefight knowing full well that it could easily lead to his death. Is she still a character you want to play?
Although it wouldn't work logistically, I was hoping for a choice involving leaving the baby in Wellington and staying with Kenny
Exactly, so if the baby has no parents it's a dick move and cowardly to abandon it as the same could've happened to you. Good job on judging though, I didn't say I do favours for people even if they never help back
I think to leave the baby, even if you don't like him, would be inhuman.
If you don't care about it that's just sad. Who says without evaluating? I'm a methodical person and I'd try it because it's worth trying. If you lack that care for a life then Idk what to say. I mean in general, if you act lone wolf and talk of burden this and abandon that, your hypothetical group or strangers won't help you, because they know you'd do shiz for them
Even if I did leave a child, living wouldn't be worth it. I'd just live the rest of my life in regret and depression. Even though, I'd probably already be depressed due to the zombies and all
You seem to think that we should all be cynical pessimist assholes, we've evolved to the point that we can question instincts and use morals, deal with that, morals have saved people as have instincts and the two coexist. But by all means just be the kind of person to not question anything because "That's how it is" or whatever you like
Learn the meaning of "if" please. Thank you
and ofc can you have the luck to be that specific baby with no parents...yeah well, bad luck, you know.
Yes, that makes sense, I clearly didn't know the meaning. Good job though, bottom line just proved there's no need for debate, you lack basic empathy found in most humans
No, it's not sad, it's what >99,9% of humans do. They don't care about "humanity", doesn't matter if they think they do (there's a lot of self-deception in this matter though).
A group of strangers that doesn't look after how to feed their mouths and invites everybody in (useless or not), is a group that doesn't live for long. Even the lovely folks at Wellington were not that stupid, that's why they denied new entries at that time cause they didn't have the supply for everyone. So they did the only reasonable thing, they closed off. You can have babies all you want if you can afford it, but if you don't it's just suicidal and if you are scarce on supplies, it's stupid not to cut it short for people who are not going to contribute to the overall survival of the group. You can then watch your whole group starving to death or more likely, they will start to fight and break up eventually.
If that's what you want, fine, go for it, I don't see the point just to feel so "humane" and "high moral".
No, I just don't have that megalomaniac complex of yours to think I can save everybody's sorry ass on this planet.
You're talking from a point of view that assumes cuddly, warmy omnipotency, but that's nothing you can apply to the real world EVER and the really sad thing is, that I am quite sure you will NOT act like you want me to believe you will; because you are not omnipotent, you WILL have to make a decision and you will NOT decide against your own good if you have any sanity left.
That's why ZA is such a funny scenario, cause it will force people like you to act against the image they made of themselves.
Cynicism and reason are two different things, although cynics tend to be more reasonable than average people.
I was never talking of instincts, I was talking of the necessities of life that are dictated by the universe. You can NOT overrule them, no matter how hard you want that to be true. People are not cynical pessimist assholes to accept that little fact, sorry.
I never wanted to leave AJ behind but it would have been nice to have the option.
Nice Deus Ex avatar pic though.
Well yeah, lots of things aren't set in stone as good/bad, but we're talking about abandoning a baby here. I like to think all the options that are presented on screen are the thoughts that cross Clementine's mind, and I don't think she would do anything other than act on instinct and protect the child
Do you also cry to your sleep every evening by the thought of how many animals and humans you killed directly or indirectly with your buying decisions? Nope? Thought so....
You really learn a lot about people with questions like this. It was the same watching the show. After some hard choice the characters had to make, half the fanbase would argue for it and half against it.
Nah, you really don't. You just see some extreme (and fictive) examples, but most people will never be in a situation that tests their self-proclaimed morals and beliefs, so you get little out of what they say about it.
That wasnt forced. It was relief and the fact that she was attached to the baby and fond of him. We saw that with her interactions with him. She thought he was dead a minute before that. How did you think she would react?
As much as I hate to admit it but I was waiting for the choice to pop up in episode 5 and I probably would have taken it. If you have sophisticated way of ensuring the babies and your safety (because if you die the baby is dead too if you're not part of a community/group), than yes of course keep the kid and raise it to the best of your abilities. But the numbers at the end didn't play in that favor.
Well, that's your interpretation. Of course most likely none of us are going to be in these extreme situations, but you do learn a lot about a person's mindset. Your responses in these threads said a lot about you. Was none of that how you really think?
It seems like you have a shitty personality, huh? It is perfectly normal to be depressed if you deliberately leave someone to die.
Its disturbing how many of you would abandon a baby. If Clem dies it should be something meaningful... like protecting the baby!
I have no idea why the hell Clem didn't just go around the herd.
I just don't get it. There clearly is enough space to just go around, and not risk her and the baby's life by walking straight through.
Having to walk 10 more minutes beats getting eaten alive in my books.
To be completely honest I think most of the people here who claim they would never do anything like that. Would think quite differently if they were put really in the same situation.
About Clem sacrificing herself to "safe" the baby would always depend on the situation. Can you ensure that if you die the baby has a bigger chance of survival for the next months? As long as that wouldn't be a given any death like that would be just silly.
I think the opposite, that most of the people here claiming they would abandon a baby wouldn't do it in real life.
Honestly, the option would have been nice for the people who wanted to get rid of AJ, I would have kept him, but it does feel like another forced option to like him just like Kenny. I probably would have gone with Bonnie, Mike and Arvo to escape Kenny to be honest, but the plot makes it look like you have a strong bond with him, so I had to stick with him.
You gotta have something to fight for or else what's the point in surviving. The way I see it is that Clementine was taken care of by Omid, Christa, and Lee even though they were complete strangers to her and they knew she was just a little girl that could be a huge liability in terms of survival. Clementine is now doing the same with AJ even though knowing it might be tougher in her situation. The option to abandon the baby would be like the option to abandon Clementine, because it might be too hard or it could get you killed. I understand one is a baby and Clem is a little girl that can learn and perform tasks, but the concept remains the same Clementine just can't leave someone if they are helpless. It may be worthwhile to keep AJ, because of how great Clementine turned out.
I guess I'd want this choice just to have it (and maybe do it in my psycho playhtrough), but remember it's not you there, but Clem. Clem and Lee are not empty shells, but characters. You make the important choices, but it's never something Clem or Lee wouldn't say or do.
That's why you can shoot Kenny when he attacks Jane, and not after he beats Arvo or some other time when he pisses you of. Maybe if you where in that situation, and you hated Kenny enough, you would've killed him, but Clem wouldn't. The same applies to the baby. Survival or no survival, she can't leave a newborn to die. You wanted to leave Alvin Jr, but she couldn't, so it wasn't a choice. That's how I see it, at least.
That might be true for your Clementine but you can't just assume that everyone's Clementine would act the same way. Clementine doesn't have a canon set personality. We have considerable control over her personality.The Clementine who watches Carver get his face bashed in is a very different person than the one who begs Kenny not to kill him. I mean you can certainly have your Clementine do whatever it takes to defend the baby but the fact is, we've already been given an option where we can choose our own safety over the safety of the baby. At the very beginning of episode 5, Clementine can choose to save her own skin and run for cover. In the process, she leaves the baby lying on the ground in the middle of a firefight, knowing full well that it could easily lead to his death.
That's a choice. I like having those kinds of dilemmas presented, they're the heart of the game. Sorry, I see that I had misread your topic question as "Anyone else wanted to abandon the baby?" and mostly skipped to your rationale for abandoning AJ. It was late, I fucked up. Yeah, I'm cool with having an option. The temptation to sacrifice your humanity for survival is what TWD is all about. I would just find a Clem like that despicable.
I wasn't suggesting to leave him because I don't like him. I was suggesting to leave him because the alternative would almost certainly lead to Clementine's death if she didn't have the all-mighty protection of plot armor. The chances of an 11 year old successfully raising a baby by herself in a zombie apocalypse are about as high as some random joe from the street attempting to break someone out of Gitmo...