I agree that Clem being largely influenced by Lee wouldn't just abandon anyone who hasn't wronged her in any way. The only thing I slightly disagree with is what you said about Omid and Christa they weren't complete strangers to her. They went through some ordeals together during the 3 episodes with Lee. So the two had enough time to build a connection with her.
Sure they could have said "go away" but that wouldn't be in character at least from what we knew.
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, … moreChrista, 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.
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 morality. 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?
Things change in a zombie apocalypse. The rules of civilization are thrown out the window and the rules of natural selection start to take over. The people who are pragmatic will generally have a higher chance of surviving than the people who are overly charitable or who take on enormous risks to help someone in need. We would certainly try to cling to our humanity in the beginning, but how do you know that won't change overtime? As society regresses, the competition for resources would likely get more and more fierce. Eventually, even the most charitable might change their beliefs. I mean its easy to claim that you would send yourself on a suicide mission and protect the baby at all costs. its another thing entirely to actually have to make that decision in real life. Who knows? Maybe I myself would be too guilty to leave the baby. Or maybe I wouldn't be brave enough to risk myself to save someone when the odds of success are so brutally against me. If I had to make a prediction, I think I would probably go with the latter. Does that make me a coward? Probably. Does being such a coward also make me a monster as most people here would claim?
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 morality.
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.
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?
Keep in mind you're talking about the same person who can watch Carver get his face bashed in just to satisfy her bloodlust. The same person who can refuse to share any food with a starving stray dog. The same person who can suggest to abandon Kenny at Carver's camp because of his injury. The same girl who can abandon Sarah to the walkers without putting much effort into saving her. The same person who can leave the baby lying on the ground in the middle of a firefight, knowing that he could easily die. Does it sound unrealistic for a character like this to refuse to take on the suicidal odds of raising a baby by herself in a world gone to hell?
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… more 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.
You claim she was attached to the baby yet we were given several options in the episode that point to the contrary. We can leave him lying on the ground in the initial firefight. We can call him annoying and a whiny jerk. The game gives you the option of being unattached to the baby up until the very last scene.
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?
I would happily abandon the baby ,in a bad situation that forces me to do so. What the fuck is wrong with you,people ? You are struggling to survive in the worst apocalypse ever and you're MAKING A BABY ??? OK, all im saying is that Rebecca should've take care of him , not the entire group.
I'd go all "Kenny" on anyone who even considers abandoning a baby. I find it hilarious that a lot 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.
I don't think you understand just how powerful fear can be in a situation like that. Not everyone is a knight in shining armor who is capable of performing heroic acts of sacrifice. To claim that someone is a monster because they are too frightened to sacrifice themselves for someone else is a bit disturbing. You might as well claim that every Iraqi living under the reign of the Islamic State is a monster because they haven't decided to overthrow them yet. I mean sure, its sounds like a noble cause to get rid of such a brutally oppressive organization but you would also be sentencing yourself to death, as well risking the lives of your family members. By your logic, many victims of the holocaust should also be considered monsters because they were too frightened to fight the Nazis.
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.
I guess. The writers themselves said in an IGN interview that Clem has to take the baby because she just wasn't quite in the position to consider abandoning him. I certainly can't see myself abandoning him, I care for her too much to have her do that
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 … morea 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.
Your not alone brother, baby will be a liability for at least 10 years. Always having to get food for it, it screaming will blow your cover/attract zombies, having to carry it everywhere. It is just plain useless, and will be a pain in the ass.
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 this 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 suicide. Especially as an 11 year old girl with no group, no shelter and no supplies. If it weren't for plot armor, Clementine and the baby would both be dead within days. Does it really make you a monster if you refuse to take on such suicidal odds? The context of the situation is extremely important. Carefully analyze the risks you're taking by raising the baby and the odds of you actually succeeding in your mission. Too many people here seem to have a black and white view of morality. I don't think many of you realize just how powerful the need for self preservation can be in a situation like this.
2) Clementine would never abandon the baby!
Keep in mind that you're talking about the same girl who can watch Carver get his face bashed in just to satisfy her bloodlust. The same person who can refuse to share food with a starving stray dog. The same little girl who can abandon Sarah to the walkers without putting much effort into saving her. The same person who can suggest to abandon Kenny at Carver's camp because his injury would jeopardize her own escape. The same person who can leave the baby lying on the ground in the middle of a firefight, knowing that it could easily lead to his death. Does it sound unrealistic for a person like this to abandon the baby?
3) Leaving the baby is stupid! It jeopardizes the continuation of the human race!
I disagree completely. Lets not forget that Clementine herself is still a child. She can grow up and have children of her own one day. The chances of that happening are extremely low if she chooses to take care of the baby by herself. If she and the baby both survive, then that obviously would be the ideal solution but what are the chances of that happening? Almost none if it weren't for their all-mighty plot armor. By choosing to go alone, you at least have a decent chance of Clementine surviving into adulthood. The life of a fertile female is far more important to population growth than the life of a male. Fertile females are the limiting factor when it comes to population growth. A male can impregnate several females at once but a female can give birth to a very limited number of offspring at a time. How fast a population can grow is highly dependent on how many fertile females are present in that population. Now I'm certainly not an expert at this so if someone wants to correct me on that then go ahead but based on my limited understanding, Clementine's life is far more valuable to human population growth than the baby's life is. Of course, all of this is under the assumption that Clementine actually wants to have kids. The choice is obviously hers.
Watching Carver is the only one which is straight fucked up, imo. All the rest can be justified either by desperation and, well, cowardice. Clem was starving when she met Sam the Dog (and people are always less empathic towards animals than they are towards other people). She was desperate to leave Carver's camp when Kenny was injured (while some argue it wasn't that urgent, I didn't wonna know what that crazy fuck was gonna do next). Also, you can only leave Sarah when walkers break into the house, and, honestly, I thought Jane would die as a result of sticking with Sarah. Finally, she's in the middle of a frickin' firefight at the beginning of episode 5. Just leaving the baby, not because he's crying while crossing the herd (which will obviously happen at some point and seal Clem's and/or AJ's fate forever in the alone ending), but because you just don't feel like giving it a try, doesn't sound like any Clem, not even the worst possible Clem.
Keep in mind you're talking about the same person who can watch Carver get his face bashed in just to satisfy her bloodlust. The same person… more who can refuse to share any food with a starving stray dog. The same person who can suggest to abandon Kenny at Carver's camp because of his injury. The same girl who can abandon Sarah to the walkers without putting much effort into saving her. The same person who can leave the baby lying on the ground in the middle of a firefight, knowing that he could easily die. Does it sound unrealistic for a character like this to refuse to take on the suicidal odds of raising a baby by herself in a world gone to hell?
I think Telltale has big plans for AJ in Season 3, and they aren't ready for Clementine to lose her humanity. I'd say it isn't an option for the same reason that you can't just leave Clementine in season 1. My Clementine, at least, would rather be dead than be an empty and heartless survivor. If all you care about is continuing to live and eat then what separates you from the Zombies?
I think Telltale has big plans for AJ in Season 3, and they aren't ready for Clementine to lose her humanity. I'd say it isn't an option for… more the same reason that you can't just leave Clementine in season 1. My Clementine, at least, would rather be dead than be an empty and heartless survivor. If all you care about is continuing to live and eat then what separates you from the Zombies?
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.' You 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 after years of adjusting to the apocalypse and rebuilding communities, I'd say the time has already arrived for people to start considering the future and taking the risk of having children. Otherwise, if you keep putting off the inevitable, you're most likely going to die without having never even taken the chance of creating a legacy.
This is why people in impoverished, war-torn, hellish regions tend to have the most babies.
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]
Well the entire Season didnt let us really decide anything but how to end the season, how crap is that? No option to leave Arvo either and he shoots us!
Well the entire Season didnt let us really decide anything but how to end the season, how crap is that? No option to leave Arvo either and he shoots us!
I was excited by the original slide for Amid The Ruins, which gave me the impression that Clementine was going to abandoned her hat, put on blood as war-paint, and be involved in a creepy conflict between human groups. Perhaps this "civil war/child-soldier" plot-line will come into play once Clementine reaches her teen years?
I think Telltale has big plans for AJ in Season 3, and they aren't ready for Clementine to lose her humanity. I'd say it isn't an option for… more the same reason that you can't just leave Clementine in season 1. My Clementine, at least, would rather be dead than be an empty and heartless survivor. If all you care about is continuing to live and eat then what separates you from the Zombies?
She chooses not to save the baby in the firefight because it would put herself in enormous risk. Wanting to abandon the baby uses the exact same logic. Raising the baby puts her in just as much, if not more risk than saving the baby during the firefight. Its just not as obvious and immediate. You don't need to "give it a try" to understand the amount of danger you're putting yourself in by raising that baby.
Watching Carver is the only one which is straight fucked up, imo. All the rest can be justified either by desperation and, well, cowardice. … moreClem was starving when she met Sam the Dog (and people are always less empathic towards animals than they are towards other people). She was desperate to leave Carver's camp when Kenny was injured (while some argue it wasn't that urgent, I didn't wonna know what that crazy fuck was gonna do next). Also, you can only leave Sarah when walkers break into the house, and, honestly, I thought Jane would die as a result of sticking with Sarah. Finally, she's in the middle of a frickin' firefight at the beginning of episode 5. Just leaving the baby, not because he's crying while crossing the herd (which will obviously happen at some point and seal Clem's and/or AJ's fate forever in the alone ending), but because you just don't feel like giving it a try, doesn't sound like any Clem, not even the worst possible Clem.
Can she really fend for a baby by herself? Imagine they're both sleeping. Clem made sure to cover themselves in walker guts to avoid detection and maybe even set up some alarm systems around her sleeping site to wake her up in case walkers come by. Now if she were by herself, she could probably survive sleeping in that situation. What if the baby wakes up and starts crying though? What if the same moment that he starts crying, there happen to be a crap ton of walkers in the vicinity? How's Clem supposed to deal with that? What if there happen to be so many walkers around that escape is almost impossible? Especially in the dark. Clem could probably get away if she wanted to just by acting like a walker as long as she's covered in guts but what about the baby? The little guy is just gonna keep crying. If Clementine is holding on to him, that puts both the baby AND Clementine in immense danger. I've stated this multiple times already. Raising the baby by yourself is a suicide mission. Also, Clementine doesn't have to give weak and vulnerable characters a chance. We can let the baby lie on the ground in the initial firefight instead of saving him. We can abandon Sarah to the walkers without putting much effort into saving her. We can refuse to share food with a starving dog. Your vision of Clementine isn't the same as that of everyone else. Yes, there are things that we will never be able to do but we are still given considerable choice in deciding what kind of a person Clementine really is.
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]
As you said, it's not immediate risk. Let me give example: If a doctor tells a patient he has to have a surgery or he might be in danger in a few years, many will say yes, but most will postpone it (sometimes indefinetely). However, if the doctor says "do it or you die!", no one will say no. Clem can leave the baby when she is in an immediate danger (the firefight), but not if she's just thinking of the long term. That's how I interpret the choice you're given.
She chooses not to save the baby in the firefight because it would put herself in enormous risk. Wanting to abandon the baby uses the exact … moresame logic. Raising the baby puts her in just as much, if not more risk than saving the baby during the firefight. Its just not as obvious and immediate. You don't need to "give it a try" to understand the amount of danger you're putting yourself in by raising that baby.
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 … morealso 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.
It's basically what I really think, but I don't see a point to be dishonest in this matter. It's just that people tend to delude themselves and I had a lot of conflict with other people throughout my life because I just say how things are without sugarcoating them and that doesn't go well with a lot of people. They kinda get into that shoot-the-messenger thing and get angry at me for stating simple truths. I have no problem in acknowledging that I'm a cynical bastard that reeks hypocrisy everywhere he goes.
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… more a person's mindset. Your responses in these threads said a lot about you. Was none of that how you really think?
But you aren't depressed, are you? How come your logic falls flat there? Because you just don't think about all the people you deliberately leave to die every day? Nah, cmon, where and by whom do you think your lovely machine was assembled? In your backyard by fleas? Jeez...
My Clem would be angry because the problem that solved itself a minute ago would be back and she has to take care of it somehow.
That's how my Clem would react.
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?
People are so full of themselves with their shitty morals here, it's sickening. The sheer fact that you reflect on this problem will probably lead to a more humane behavior by you than by any of these self-proclaimed moralists in this thread.
Oh, the irony...
Things change in a zombie apocalypse. The rules of civilization are thrown out the window and the rules of natural selection start to take o… morever. The people who are pragmatic will generally have a higher chance of surviving than the people who are overly charitable or who take on enormous risks to help someone in need. We would certainly try to cling to our humanity in the beginning, but how do you know that won't change overtime? As society regresses, the competition for resources would likely get more and more fierce. Eventually, even the most charitable might change their beliefs. I mean its easy to claim that you would send yourself on a suicide mission and protect the baby at all costs. its another thing entirely to actually have to make that decision in real life. Who knows? Maybe I myself would be too guilty to leave the baby. Or maybe I wouldn't be brave enough to risk myself to save someone when the odds of success are so brutally aga… [view original content]
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.
Its not as immediate as being in a firefight but it is far more immediate and dangerous than the example you gave of the patient potentially suffering complications in the future. A more appropriate example would be the patient being offered the surgery on the assumption that he has a very high chance of dying within a matter of days if he refuses. It is still an immediate and dangerous situation that requires attention.
As you said, it's not immediate risk. Let me give example: If a doctor tells a patient he has to have a surgery or he might be in danger in … morea few years, many will say yes, but most will postpone it (sometimes indefinetely). However, if the doctor says "do it or you die!", no one will say no. Clem can leave the baby when she is in an immediate danger (the firefight), but not if she's just thinking of the long term. That's how I interpret the choice you're given.
I think maybe that could be a choice if you're alone (you're actually left without a choice in this one), becuase, I've said it before, you start crossing the herd like a boss, then AJ cries and you die like an idiot. But, at no other moment can you leave the baby. And it still should only be in a moment of desperation. She'd give it a try. It doesn't work. She throws AJ to the walkers because she's surrounded. No other way would feel even remotely like Clem to me.
Its not as immediate as being in a firefight but it is far more immediate and dangerous than the example you gave of the patient potentially… more suffering complications in the future. A more appropriate example would be the patient being offered the surgery on the assumption that he has a very high chance of dying within a matter of days if he refuses. It is still an immediate and dangerous situation that requires attention.
Sure, having emotions and morals is a megalomaniac complex. Good narrow minded thinking. Omnitpotency doesn't have anything to do with this, 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?
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 po… moreint 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.
I don't think he meant a loner. But it would be good not to be forced to like someone like they do do Clementine x Kenny and have our own personality as a character.
Everyone keeps telling Clem that she is Kenny's friend, that she knows to calm him down and bla bla bla.
It just sucks not having our choices influence it.
Good idea, but isn't one of the best parts of the game the characters and character development? If we lone wolf it'd not only be boring with no one to talk to but we wouldn't get the scenes that make the game so good
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 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
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… more 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".
And here again we have two branches, family and survival. All I want to say is that I see no point to live just trying to save my skin for as long as possible. I know, chances are not high, but I can't, and my Clementine can't just leave AJ to have higher chances for saving my own ass.
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… more 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...
True, but it's another Jane situation. She assumed Sarah wanted to give up, but she didn't. I dislike the idea of writing people off as burdens or given up if we actually don't know. I wonder how many players would tell Kenny the truth if they killed the baby, even his fans would probably lie like Bonnie. If people in a situation like that don't even try, there's no point in them trying to save themselves either, it wouldn't get them very far
But shouldn't abandoning the baby in the initial firefight be considered just as monstrous as abandoning it in general? I know that there ar… moree 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.
In that case yes for sure. The only problem is how much creative control Telltale need to keep, like they need to be able to keep the story and dramatic moments emotional often by having a character the majority must like involved, like Lee when he was our PC, or Kenny, Jane and Luke were supposed to be main characters whether we like it or not. It'd be much harder for them to say, write an ending like Lee's or Kenny's etc. with each individual character like minor characters just in case we like them more. I do agree with you guys, just unsure how they can do it
I don't think he meant a loner. But it would be good not to be forced to like someone like they do do Clementine x Kenny and have our own pe… morersonality as a character.
Everyone keeps telling Clem that she is Kenny's friend, that she knows to calm him down and bla bla bla.
It just sucks not having our choices influence it.
Comments
I agree that Clem being largely influenced by Lee wouldn't just abandon anyone who hasn't wronged her in any way. The only thing I slightly disagree with is what you said about Omid and Christa they weren't complete strangers to her. They went through some ordeals together during the 3 episodes with Lee. So the two had enough time to build a connection with her.
Sure they could have said "go away" but that wouldn't be in character at least from what we knew.
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 morality. 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?
I would have liked that option if only it allows us the exact circumstance of how Christa's baby does not make it.
Things change in a zombie apocalypse. The rules of civilization are thrown out the window and the rules of natural selection start to take over. The people who are pragmatic will generally have a higher chance of surviving than the people who are overly charitable or who take on enormous risks to help someone in need. We would certainly try to cling to our humanity in the beginning, but how do you know that won't change overtime? As society regresses, the competition for resources would likely get more and more fierce. Eventually, even the most charitable might change their beliefs. I mean its easy to claim that you would send yourself on a suicide mission and protect the baby at all costs. its another thing entirely to actually have to make that decision in real life. Who knows? Maybe I myself would be too guilty to leave the baby. Or maybe I wouldn't be brave enough to risk myself to save someone when the odds of success are so brutally against me. If I had to make a prediction, I think I would probably go with the latter. Does that make me a coward? Probably. Does being such a coward also make me a monster as most people here would claim?
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.
Keep in mind you're talking about the same person who can watch Carver get his face bashed in just to satisfy her bloodlust. The same person who can refuse to share any food with a starving stray dog. The same person who can suggest to abandon Kenny at Carver's camp because of his injury. The same girl who can abandon Sarah to the walkers without putting much effort into saving her. The same person who can leave the baby lying on the ground in the middle of a firefight, knowing that he could easily die. Does it sound unrealistic for a character like this to refuse to take on the suicidal odds of raising a baby by herself in a world gone to hell?
You claim she was attached to the baby yet we were given several options in the episode that point to the contrary. We can leave him lying on the ground in the initial firefight. We can call him annoying and a whiny jerk. The game gives you the option of being unattached to the baby up until the very last scene.
I would happily abandon the baby ,in a bad situation that forces me to do so. What the fuck is wrong with you,people ? You are struggling to survive in the worst apocalypse ever and you're MAKING A BABY ??? OK, all im saying is that Rebecca should've take care of him , not the entire group.
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 lot 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.
I don't think you understand just how powerful fear can be in a situation like that. Not everyone is a knight in shining armor who is capable of performing heroic acts of sacrifice. To claim that someone is a monster because they are too frightened to sacrifice themselves for someone else is a bit disturbing. You might as well claim that every Iraqi living under the reign of the Islamic State is a monster because they haven't decided to overthrow them yet. I mean sure, its sounds like a noble cause to get rid of such a brutally oppressive organization but you would also be sentencing yourself to death, as well risking the lives of your family members. By your logic, many victims of the holocaust should also be considered monsters because they were too frightened to fight the Nazis.
I guess. The writers themselves said in an IGN interview that Clem has to take the baby because she just wasn't quite in the position to consider abandoning him. I certainly can't see myself abandoning him, I care for her too much to have her do that
Your not alone brother, baby will be a liability for at least 10 years. Always having to get food for it, it screaming will blow your cover/attract zombies, having to carry it everywhere. It is just plain useless, and will be a pain in the ass.
TeamLIlly
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 this 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 suicide. Especially as an 11 year old girl with no group, no shelter and no supplies. If it weren't for plot armor, Clementine and the baby would both be dead within days. Does it really make you a monster if you refuse to take on such suicidal odds? The context of the situation is extremely important. Carefully analyze the risks you're taking by raising the baby and the odds of you actually succeeding in your mission. Too many people here seem to have a black and white view of morality. I don't think many of you realize just how powerful the need for self preservation can be in a situation like this.
2) Clementine would never abandon the baby!
Keep in mind that you're talking about the same girl who can watch Carver get his face bashed in just to satisfy her bloodlust. The same person who can refuse to share food with a starving stray dog. The same little girl who can abandon Sarah to the walkers without putting much effort into saving her. The same person who can suggest to abandon Kenny at Carver's camp because his injury would jeopardize her own escape. The same person who can leave the baby lying on the ground in the middle of a firefight, knowing that it could easily lead to his death. Does it sound unrealistic for a person like this to abandon the baby?
3) Leaving the baby is stupid! It jeopardizes the continuation of the human race!
I disagree completely. Lets not forget that Clementine herself is still a child. She can grow up and have children of her own one day. The chances of that happening are extremely low if she chooses to take care of the baby by herself. If she and the baby both survive, then that obviously would be the ideal solution but what are the chances of that happening? Almost none if it weren't for their all-mighty plot armor. By choosing to go alone, you at least have a decent chance of Clementine surviving into adulthood. The life of a fertile female is far more important to population growth than the life of a male. Fertile females are the limiting factor when it comes to population growth. A male can impregnate several females at once but a female can give birth to a very limited number of offspring at a time. How fast a population can grow is highly dependent on how many fertile females are present in that population. Now I'm certainly not an expert at this so if someone wants to correct me on that then go ahead but based on my limited understanding, Clementine's life is far more valuable to human population growth than the baby's life is. Of course, all of this is under the assumption that Clementine actually wants to have kids. The choice is obviously hers.
Watching Carver is the only one which is straight fucked up, imo. All the rest can be justified either by desperation and, well, cowardice. Clem was starving when she met Sam the Dog (and people are always less empathic towards animals than they are towards other people). She was desperate to leave Carver's camp when Kenny was injured (while some argue it wasn't that urgent, I didn't wonna know what that crazy fuck was gonna do next). Also, you can only leave Sarah when walkers break into the house, and, honestly, I thought Jane would die as a result of sticking with Sarah. Finally, she's in the middle of a frickin' firefight at the beginning of episode 5. Just leaving the baby, not because he's crying while crossing the herd (which will obviously happen at some point and seal Clem's and/or AJ's fate forever in the alone ending), but because you just don't feel like giving it a try, doesn't sound like any Clem, not even the worst possible Clem.
I think Telltale has big plans for AJ in Season 3, and they aren't ready for Clementine to lose her humanity. I'd say it isn't an option for the same reason that you can't just leave Clementine in season 1. My Clementine, at least, would rather be dead than be an empty and heartless survivor. If all you care about is continuing to live and eat then what separates you from the Zombies?
We survived.
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.' You 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 after years of adjusting to the apocalypse and rebuilding communities, I'd say the time has already arrived for people to start considering the future and taking the risk of having children. Otherwise, if you keep putting off the inevitable, you're most likely going to die without having never even taken the chance of creating a legacy.
This is why people in impoverished, war-torn, hellish regions tend to have the most babies.
We should have had the option to at least shoot him/Mike whether they died or not.
Well the entire Season didnt let us really decide anything but how to end the season, how crap is that? No option to leave Arvo either and he shoots us!
I was excited by the original slide for Amid The Ruins, which gave me the impression that Clementine was going to abandoned her hat, put on blood as war-paint, and be involved in a creepy conflict between human groups. Perhaps this "civil war/child-soldier" plot-line will come into play once Clementine reaches her teen years?
She chooses not to save the baby in the firefight because it would put herself in enormous risk. Wanting to abandon the baby uses the exact same logic. Raising the baby puts her in just as much, if not more risk than saving the baby during the firefight. Its just not as obvious and immediate. You don't need to "give it a try" to understand the amount of danger you're putting yourself in by raising that baby.
Can she really fend for a baby by herself? Imagine they're both sleeping. Clem made sure to cover themselves in walker guts to avoid detection and maybe even set up some alarm systems around her sleeping site to wake her up in case walkers come by. Now if she were by herself, she could probably survive sleeping in that situation. What if the baby wakes up and starts crying though? What if the same moment that he starts crying, there happen to be a crap ton of walkers in the vicinity? How's Clem supposed to deal with that? What if there happen to be so many walkers around that escape is almost impossible? Especially in the dark. Clem could probably get away if she wanted to just by acting like a walker as long as she's covered in guts but what about the baby? The little guy is just gonna keep crying. If Clementine is holding on to him, that puts both the baby AND Clementine in immense danger. I've stated this multiple times already. Raising the baby by yourself is a suicide mission. Also, Clementine doesn't have to give weak and vulnerable characters a chance. We can let the baby lie on the ground in the initial firefight instead of saving him. We can abandon Sarah to the walkers without putting much effort into saving her. We can refuse to share food with a starving dog. Your vision of Clementine isn't the same as that of everyone else. Yes, there are things that we will never be able to do but we are still given considerable choice in deciding what kind of a person Clementine really is.
lol, most def, I don't feel any kind of attachment to a vg baby, except the ones on Silent Hill PT.
As you said, it's not immediate risk. Let me give example: If a doctor tells a patient he has to have a surgery or he might be in danger in a few years, many will say yes, but most will postpone it (sometimes indefinetely). However, if the doctor says "do it or you die!", no one will say no. Clem can leave the baby when she is in an immediate danger (the firefight), but not if she's just thinking of the long term. That's how I interpret the choice you're given.
Yeah. I agree Clem being alone with the baby is almost suicide But still... I wouldn't leave a baby.
It's basically what I really think, but I don't see a point to be dishonest in this matter. It's just that people tend to delude themselves and I had a lot of conflict with other people throughout my life because I just say how things are without sugarcoating them and that doesn't go well with a lot of people. They kinda get into that shoot-the-messenger thing and get angry at me for stating simple truths. I have no problem in acknowledging that I'm a cynical bastard that reeks hypocrisy everywhere he goes.
But you aren't depressed, are you? How come your logic falls flat there? Because you just don't think about all the people you deliberately leave to die every day? Nah, cmon, where and by whom do you think your lovely machine was assembled? In your backyard by fleas? Jeez...
My Clem would be angry because the problem that solved itself a minute ago would be back and she has to take care of it somehow.
That's how my Clem would react.
People are so full of themselves with their shitty morals here, it's sickening. The sheer fact that you reflect on this problem will probably lead to a more humane behavior by you than by any of these self-proclaimed moralists in this thread.
Oh, the irony...
You mean dying with the baby is more meaningful than surviving and breeding as many babies as she likes later on?
Really?
So, who have you saved today? Surely there are enough people in dire situations that could need your help...why haven't you helped them? You monster!
Its not as immediate as being in a firefight but it is far more immediate and dangerous than the example you gave of the patient potentially suffering complications in the future. A more appropriate example would be the patient being offered the surgery on the assumption that he has a very high chance of dying within a matter of days if he refuses. It is still an immediate and dangerous situation that requires attention.
I think maybe that could be a choice if you're alone (you're actually left without a choice in this one), becuase, I've said it before, you start crossing the herd like a boss, then AJ cries and you die like an idiot. But, at no other moment can you leave the baby. And it still should only be in a moment of desperation. She'd give it a try. It doesn't work. She throws AJ to the walkers because she's surrounded. No other way would feel even remotely like Clem to me.
I swear if one more person asks me if it's mine they are getting shot.
Sure, having emotions and morals is a megalomaniac complex. Good narrow minded thinking. Omnitpotency doesn't have anything to do with this, 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?
I don't think he meant a loner. But it would be good not to be forced to like someone like they do do Clementine x Kenny and have our own personality as a character.
Everyone keeps telling Clem that she is Kenny's friend, that she knows to calm him down and bla bla bla.
It just sucks not having our choices influence it.
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 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
And here again we have two branches, family and survival. All I want to say is that I see no point to live just trying to save my skin for as long as possible. I know, chances are not high, but I can't, and my Clementine can't just leave AJ to have higher chances for saving my own ass.
True, but it's another Jane situation. She assumed Sarah wanted to give up, but she didn't. I dislike the idea of writing people off as burdens or given up if we actually don't know. I wonder how many players would tell Kenny the truth if they killed the baby, even his fans would probably lie like Bonnie. If people in a situation like that don't even try, there's no point in them trying to save themselves either, it wouldn't get them very far
In that case yes for sure. The only problem is how much creative control Telltale need to keep, like they need to be able to keep the story and dramatic moments emotional often by having a character the majority must like involved, like Lee when he was our PC, or Kenny, Jane and Luke were supposed to be main characters whether we like it or not. It'd be much harder for them to say, write an ending like Lee's or Kenny's etc. with each individual character like minor characters just in case we like them more. I do agree with you guys, just unsure how they can do it