Nate as Clem and AJ's caretaker/ companion. Thoughts/

245

Comments

  • Thats what I'm saying especially considering him being mentally unbalanced he would go the extra length to protect them (more than the average person would).

    TheZorkij posted: »

    Let me clarify, I'm in no way saying there's an excuse for what Nate did, but it's just not fair that some people here act like he's a pure

  • Fair one. He still doesn't gun down elderly people though, does he?

    AbraaoTTG posted: »

    as i said before in this thread here > http://www.telltalegames.com/community/discussion/84524/am-i-missing-something-here-with-kenny-an

  • no but he still beat down a young boy , i know i know before you start i wanna clear some thing to you i dont like arvo BUT i understand his actions (after the shootout) he is not a saint but we dont treat people like shit you know , arvos only shot clem because he saw clem killing his sister and he tough that she was alive.kenny was a good guy back in s1 , in s2 he is just violence and thats all, you see kenny beats arvo, who is going to be next?! and dont come to me with that "oh kenny will never hurt clementine" we saw what kenny is capable of when he is in rage ( in the jane situation kenny's rage is justifiable but his attempt to kill her is not)its a metter of time before kenny murders again and again and again.now we know that he can kill and beat people and just be fine with it

    so tell me what is the difference between Kenny and Nate now?

    Hazzer posted: »

    Fair one. He still doesn't gun down elderly people though, does he?

  • Dat picture tho. :D

    AbraaoTTG posted: »

    well by that i'm sure you killed kenny

  • edited December 2014

    I've said in several other threads that I think it would be very interesting to see how Nate interacted with Clem, or to even play as him and see what decisions we would have from his pov. I don't believe he's incapable of caring about people, look at how pissed he was when Wyatt and Eddie shot his friend. That obviously affected his ability to trust greatly, which is why he was so quick to kill the old people, because they were shooting at him and Russel. They became the enemy at that moment, it didn't matter who they were. As far as his sense of humor goes, I think it's pretty obvious that is how he's dealt with the events that the apocalypse has brought on, this is his way of normalizing it and being able to keep moving. If he were to come to care for Clem, I actually think he'd be a lot like Rick Grimes is with Carl. Anyone who touches Clem dies, doesn't matter who they are, he will kill them for trying to hurt her and/or him. As I said previously, it would be very interesting to see more of his character, and I would love to play as him next season.

  • Sure, but Joe from the TV show was pissed about Rick killing his buddy, too, so he cared about him to an extent. Doesn't mean he was anything other than a scumbag for willing to look the other way at another of his gang trying to rape a little boy and planning to rape Michonne himself and then shoot Rick in the head after making him watch all these things.

    Nate isn't portrayed as the villain in that scenario for nothing. We know nothing about him except what Eddie has to say, and Eddie's feelings are that he and his buddies were bad news from the start. He also doesn't sound full of regret and hatred when you go outside as Wyatt and he fails to kill Eddie. "Come on, man, we were just getting started!" Don't you think someone filled with noble regret would be more like, "Fuck! Get back here you son of a bitch!" Or something to that extent? I don't buy that Nate was just this poor guy suffering from a friend's death.

    He killed the old people because he had no problem being a murderer. Nothing more. This is clear when he jokes about the prospect of murdering them and taking their stuff to Russell, not to mention his crazy eyes. Also, regardless of the actions of Walt, Nate's killing of them cannot be justified because Walt was also defending himself and his wife. If he was wrong about Nate being with the bandits, then it's a matter of a misunderstanding brought on by understandable paranoia (if Nate can be excused because of trust issues, so can Walt). If he was right about him, then it was straight up self-defense. Either way, Nate killing defenseless people cannot be justified.

    Tinni posted: »

    I've said in several other threads that I think it would be very interesting to see how Nate interacted with Clem, or to even play as him an

  • It's simple. Nate takes pleasure in it, Kenny doesn't and does it to protect the group. He was overzealous with Arvo but ultimately right all along... Clementine can talk him down from hurting Arvo and he actually looks guilty, whereas Russell can't stop Nate from murdering the couple regardless of what he does.

    AbraaoTTG posted: »

    no but he still beat down a young boy , i know i know before you start i wanna clear some thing to you i dont like arvo BUT i understand his

  • I think Nate is just insecure and lost but masks it with the dangerous, killing thing. People who spend all their time grieving and crying become weak and die off (as seen with Sarah). In a world where everyone is out to kill you and the dead are walking around you have to be tough and can't show any weakness. Kind of what Carver said, you need to make morally uncomfortable decisions to make sure you and the people you care about will be okay. The old people were first to shoot at them and were in a very rough state and would just be a drain on the supplies. Would you have starved so some people who woudn't have lived anyway could have it.

    damkylan posted: »

    Sure, but Joe from the TV show was pissed about Rick killing his buddy, too, so he cared about him to an extent. Doesn't mean he was anythin

  • Would you have starved so some people who woudn't have lived anyway could have it.

    Yeeeep. I'd make do.

    Jaxknife posted: »

    I think Nate is just insecure and lost but masks it with the dangerous, killing thing. People who spend all their time grieving and crying b

  • edited December 2014

    I'm not trying to say that Nate is a good man, nor am I trying to justify his actions. I am trying to explain things from what I believe is his pov, and I don't think he's necessarily a bad man either. I like that he isn't this perfect character. In fact he is so morally gray, that it's hard to tell his motives, and what exactly he is thinking. I find that very interesting, strictly speaking character-wise.

    damkylan posted: »

    Sure, but Joe from the TV show was pissed about Rick killing his buddy, too, so he cared about him to an extent. Doesn't mean he was anythin

  • That's very risky and naive. If your vehicle broke down, you were short on ammo and food and you come to the only place that has anything for miles and the only people that have it wounded and were gonna bleed out in the next hour any how.. Assuming you aren't shot in the back upon leaving, do you know how risky it would be to go 45 miles on foot with hardly anything? He made a decision him or them he chose him not much else.

    Hazzer posted: »

    Would you have starved so some people who woudn't have lived anyway could have it. Yeeeep. I'd make do.

  • Yeah, I'd keep my morals. If that means I die then so be it.

    Jaxknife posted: »

    That's very risky and naive. If your vehicle broke down, you were short on ammo and food and you come to the only place that has anything fo

  • If that means I die then so be it.

    Lets face it in that situation, no one or barely anyone would actually choose to die, people would do messed up stuff they wouldnt want to even think about.

    Hazzer posted: »

    Yeah, I'd keep my morals. If that means I die then so be it.

  • No way in hell I'd ever murder someone in cold blood, regardless of situation. That's something I know for sure. Would go against everything I've been raised to believe and every single one of my values and convictions.

    If that means I die then so be it. Lets face it in that situation, no one or barely anyone would actually choose to die, people would do messed up stuff they wouldnt want to even think about.

  • Thats what I said. He would go the extra length to keep them safe even if it means doing disgusting, horrible things to keep them safe.

    If that means I die then so be it. Lets face it in that situation, no one or barely anyone would actually choose to die, people would do messed up stuff they wouldnt want to even think about.

  • No way in hell I'd ever murder someone in cold blood, regardless of situation. That's something I know for sure. Would go against everything I've been raised to believe and every single one of my values and convictions.

    Again, your behind a computer comptley fine and comfortable not half starved and wild on adrenaline trying to stay alive, your really saying if cannibals captured and ate your group but were now no loner a threat you would not kill them? Nobody can really say what they would do in that situation. In game I left them alive because thats the "moral" thing to do however in real life I dont know

    Hazzer posted: »

    No way in hell I'd ever murder someone in cold blood, regardless of situation. That's something I know for sure. Would go against everything I've been raised to believe and every single one of my values and convictions.

  • your really saying if cannibals captured and ate your group but were now no loner a threat you would not kill them?

    That's not killing in cold blood. That's killing in defence of those I love... I'd be capable of that. I'm sorry, but I'm firm enough in my beliefs to be absolutely certain that I wouldn't gun down an elderly couple for some food and water. Hell no.

    No way in hell I'd ever murder someone in cold blood, regardless of situation. That's something I know for sure. Would go against everything

  • Remember in Episode 3 of Season 1 on the train when Clem and Lee are talking about the man Lee killed. She herself says he does what he needs to do to protect himself and her. She is grown up to know that. Thats what The Walking Dead is about doing what you need to do to survive and protect the people you care about. With that said I think Clem could appreciate what Nate would do for her and AJ.

    Hazzer posted: »

    your really saying if cannibals captured and ate your group but were now no loner a threat you would not kill them? That's not killi

  • No shit, I'm aware of all this. Lee never butchered people for the sake of some supplies for the group though, did he? They were referring to killing in self-defense and how it's acceptable. I completely agree with the notion. My Clem certainly wouldn't appreciate Nate because their moral compasses would be so immensely conflicting.

    Jaxknife posted: »

    Remember in Episode 3 of Season 1 on the train when Clem and Lee are talking about the man Lee killed. She herself says he does what he need

  • They weren't just referring to self defense. Lee didn't kill the senator in self defense and if you wanna go back earlier in the episode, Both Kenny and Lee (Determinant) let a screaming girl who was already dead get eaten alive. This is a good choice because it shows that you can't save everyone and that you have to let some people die so you can get ahead and protect your people.

    Hazzer posted: »

    No shit, I'm aware of all this. Lee never butchered people for the sake of some supplies for the group though, did he? They were referring t

  • My Lee didn't allow said screaming girl to suffer, and he also told Clem that killing's bad no matter what during that conversation.

    Jaxknife posted: »

    They weren't just referring to self defense. Lee didn't kill the senator in self defense and if you wanna go back earlier in the episode, Bo

  • xD

    Dat picture tho.

  • [removed]

    Bokor posted: »

    You guys are just a bunch of lunatics who excuse murderous scumbags like Nate. Fuck that guy. I'd have Clem kill him if she had to.

  • I have a feeling that if Eddie never killed his friend like he did, none of this would of happened. People react differently because of life situations, who knows how that effected him, but i suspect that was the cause of his downfall. Russel never been shot at, he didn't know what to do. I think by the time the old people met Nate, he was pretty much hardened, but he still wanted friendship with Russel.

    The old people shot at Nate, and he raged and killed them. At this point the only innocent one is AJ.

    Walt shoots at them and attempts to kill them, he kills russel if you dont move fast enough, he then racially insults them and continues to

  • edited October 2014

    I wanna see Nate again.

    But not like that.

    Alt text

  • Please no... I mean, I wouldn't mind if he appears in S3, but not as Clem and A.J's caretaker. He would probably try to ditch A.J.

    I think the majority of the players want to dump AJ on someone.

    Please no... I mean, I wouldn't mind if he appears in S3, but not as Clem and A.J's caretaker. He would probably try to ditch A.J.

  • I think its hilarious coming from you , your calling Nate a psycho, when you defend Kenny to the death.

    Pot calling Kettle?

    AlanSpencer posted: »

    Don't you think he's a little misunderstood as seen with Russel he has somewhat of a good side in him. Nope. He's no worse an

  • Kenny and Nate are very different. Nate is just a crazy, amoral murder. Kenny has good intentions, mostly does good, and he only kills for legitimate reasons.

    CrazyGeorge posted: »

    I think its hilarious coming from you , your calling Nate a psycho, when you defend Kenny to the death. Pot calling Kettle?

  • and he only kills for legitimate reasons.

    Same could be same for Nate. Kenny is just as moral as Nate is, don't delude yourself.

    AlanSpencer posted: »

    Kenny and Nate are very different. Nate is just a crazy, amoral murder. Kenny has good intentions, mostly does good, and he only kills for legitimate reasons.

  • Nope.

    Nate kills Walt and Jeane no matter what you do, for no good reason.

    CrazyGeorge posted: »

    and he only kills for legitimate reasons. Same could be same for Nate. Kenny is just as moral as Nate is, don't delude yourself.

  • They tried to kill Nate, or did you forget.

    AlanSpencer posted: »

    Nope. Nate kills Walt and Jeane no matter what you do, for no good reason.

  • So? They explained theselves; they just panicked because they had be attacked by bandits before. Also, there was no reason to kill them. It was not like two old people with bullet wounds were going to be any threat to him. Nate killed them just because he wanted to.

    CrazyGeorge posted: »

    They tried to kill Nate, or did you forget.

  • I'm sure Carver could explain away his actions too.

    AlanSpencer posted: »

    So? They explained theselves; they just panicked because they had be attacked by bandits before. Also, there was no reason to kill them. It

  • edited October 2014

    Of course. You are ignoring the issue again and changing the topic. I don´t even know why I am surprised. In any case, this doesn´t have to with that. You can´t just ignore that Kenny has good intentions and mostly does good, when Nate is just a nutcase that kills two old people because he wanted to. Their intentions are very different, and you are trying to shove that aside by saying that Carver could "explain away" his actions too, but that´s not even the issue here. I say it again: when Nate is just a nutcase that kills two old people because he wanted to. There is no changing that.

    CrazyGeorge posted: »

    I'm sure Carver could explain away his actions too.

  • "Turn in his grave"

    Well it is a zombie apocolpyse... :P

    Hazzer posted: »

    I'm honestly shocked that some people want Nate as Clem's guardian... Really? He's batshit insane, seriously. There's no way of justifying what he did. My Lee would turn in his grave if Clementine ever became close to someone like him.

  • I can't see Nate as Clementine's caretaker at all. I would like to see him again, but not like that.

  • Well, there's still a possibility TellTalle forgot about Nate and we won't see him again ever again.

  • Exactly, that's partly why I think it would be so fascinating.

    TheZorkij posted: »

    Let me clarify, I'm in no way saying there's an excuse for what Nate did, but it's just not fair that some people here act like he's a pure

  • Well i guess Kenny is a nutcase too for doing the following things

    1. Killing Jane
    2. Beating on Arvo
    3. Killing Carver in cold blood
    4. Screaming at Clementine
    5. Leaving Lee to die
    6. Letting his wife deal with their son's death by herself.

    I love Kenny just as much as you do, but you have to realize , he isn't a good guy. Nate he shot the old people because they shot at him first. Was it right, well the old woman was going to die anyways, I'm sure Kenny would find a way to justify it. Like he did with stealing the supplies.

    AlanSpencer posted: »

    Of course. You are ignoring the issue again and changing the topic. I don´t even know why I am surprised. In any case, this doesn´t have to

Sign in to comment in this discussion.