So... this is akward. Sorry for not responding to your comment earlier. ^~^
I've come to the conclusion that I won't waste my time on it anymore
After today, so did I.
From my point of view, the man with the assault rifle and the one with the shotgun were keen on stealing from this group for revenge, for retaliation. This however was started by the theft of the gun, of the medical supplies, by the threat made to Arvo and also because the latter was left to walk defenseless for miles, where any walker could devour him effortlessly.
Jane and Clem don't 'steal' his gun per se. They just don't give it back to him because they'd be putting their own lives at risk if so. Arvo surely understood that, and thankfully, leaving him unarmed had no consequences.
In this case scenario the Russians attack for something that could've happened, but didn't and for an unintentional theft caused by time, place and circumstance, not only our group.
In my eyes, that doesn't justify trying to steal all our group's supplies. Asking for the gun back would be the approach of a reasonable group of people. Arvo's group ambushes us instead!
It is clear that we don't know what Arvo would have done if he had been left armed, but, nonetheless, Jane and Clementine's approach to Arvo is what caused the rest of his group to decide to strike back and rob us.
But Clem and Jane's approach was a reasonable one (if you don't steal, of course). They couldn't just arm this stranger. What would be stopping him from shooting them? I'm sure Arvo's group could understand why they did what they did.
Clementine and Jane could have stayed hidden and avoided every single piece of conflict with Arvo's group.
If Clem stays hidden for long enough, Arvo finds her. Contact was inevitable, unfortunately.
If you propose waiting for him to go away ('Let's just wait him out') Jane will agree with that plan too, indicating that she only disarms Arvo in this scenario out of concern for Clem's safety.
You are completely right. I'd like to make clear that I still believe the attempted robbery was immoral, and it sure as hell wasn't their only option. What I am arguing is that their reasons are more valid and their motivation more understandable than what the average user on here believes.
Well, I think his group's actions are still condemnable and mainly unjustified. If you don't steal, out group is just a group of innocent people who chose to be a little cautious by not arming a Stranger.
Like I said shortly above, the threat was not the primary cause, but it contributed to the mindset that retaliation would be delivering justice while also acquiring supplies for themselves.
I would say that being held over the handrail of a deck with a gun pressed against your temple is not exactly just some words, especially if the young adult had not been involved in anything like that ever before.
Sorry but their sense of justice is very wicked if they think people who simply disarmed a potential threat and threatened him to not mess with their group out of caution deserve to get stolen and ambushed. Those were simply words with a bit of physical intimidation (not even harm) in it, it was seriously not that big of a deal (besides being understandable).
I appreciate your comparison, but I would like to point out that the genocides carried out affected people who did nothing to set off the chain of events other than exist as far as my knowledge goes, whereas members of our group did actually start the friction between both factions. It's also important to note that all of our group survived the confrontation.
It wasn't the best comparison. What I meant to say is that just because Arvo was following order from his intimidating leaders it doesn't make him completely blameless. He still took a part in the ambush.
Are you entirely sure? I could be confusing how everything plays out, but I find it strange that the only way of avoiding the line instead triggers the line where he asks for bandages, because this last one can only play before the rest of his group is revealed. And the line in question is also "but you, we know," but it'd sound out of place if he said this while standing alone.
He was a smug about it, though I still believe that it's only said by him if you previously stole his medicine. Both of us will have to double check!
I am. Search 'Amid The Ruins The Silent Treatment' on youtube and you'll se a playthrough by '(wrong name, lol)'. (You won't believe how hard it was to find someone who didn't steal and didn't told the group that he needed help!) He says: 'These are my friends. We stay hidden for safety, but you... we know. You're Clementine. (Smile)'. Now, this smile and smugness may be just careless branching of voice lines, because if Arvo and Maud didn't really want to ambush everyone as everything else points out, him being happy about this is just wierd.
I'm not sure if the only way to avoid him saying this is by offering him help. Offering help is one of the ways for sure, though.
(I love how that face looks with the space in between.)
I saw that sneaky typo correction.
I have mixed feelings about emojis. Sometimes I find it anoying that a yellow ugly face pops up in the middle of my comment : /.
Som etimes, thoug, I fe el like spamm ing the living hell ou t of them .
I'm glad you're like this, honestly. I feel like at times, people on these forums refrain to admit that they are wrong because they fear the… moreir pride might be damaged. I see it in a total different way. Admitting a mistake takes way more courage than keeping on rambling about something that has already been proven wrong. If people never changed their minds and didn't admit their mistakes/misunderstandings, then no-one would ever be able to improve.
I can't help but feel the same way, which is not very encouraging. I've been thinking about what purpose it has to discuss with people who refuse to consider the alternate perspective yet still have the nerve to blindly defend their own opinion. I've come to the conclusion that I won't waste my time on it anymore, unless I need some quick source of humor.
Also, thank you!
Thing is, if they're attacking for the little revolver, surely they could've tried to ask for it before they sta… [view original content]
Not trying to derail, but I see a lot of people using his age as a defense or part of a argument otherwise, with estimates in the 14-16 range. That's as old as Sarah would be. I always put him at 17 at the youngest, which is old enough to me to be held accountable for your actions
I put him at 15 to 16 and no one is saying he's not accountable for his actions but the way he was treated was, imo, undeserved by someone who should be held more accountable for his actions than he is.
Not trying to derail, but I see a lot of people using his age as a defense or part of a argument otherwise, with estimates in the 14-16 rang… moree. That's as old as Sarah would be. I always put him at 17 at the youngest, which is old enough to me to be held accountable for your actions
A lot of groups would have killed him at the end of the shootout, killed him for running away and causing panic on the ice and then killed him again for shooting Clementine. I dunno if you watch the show but back in the early days, Rick's group had a kid in a similar situation to Arvo (got into a gunfight with) who they blindfolded and emotionally tortured. That old guy Dale I think his name was, had to practically beg Rick and co just to sleep on it when it came to killing him, then Shane let the kid think they were going to let him go and then killed him anyway... considering all that Maybe Arvo didn't have it all that bad lol.
I put him at 15 to 16 and no one is saying he's not accountable for his actions but the way he was treated was, imo, undeserved by someone who should be held more accountable for his actions than he is.
A lot of groups would have killed him at the end of the shootout, killed him for running away and causing panic on the ice and then killed h… moreim again for shooting Clementine. I dunno if you watch the show but back in the early days, Rick's group had a kid in a similar situation to Arvo (got into a gunfight with) who they blindfolded and emotionally tortured. That old guy Dale I think his name was, had to practically beg Rick and co just to sleep on it when it came to killing him, then Shane let the kid think they were going to let him go and then killed him anyway... considering all that Maybe Arvo didn't have it all that bad lol.
Yeah, I do remember that with Randall. Not their finest hour. I was especially disappointed with Daryl for torturing him, and I mean physically torturing him.
I don't want to think about how it could have been worse for him, I only care about what was actually happening. That was more than bad enough considering the kid was helpless, and I don't blamed one bit for panicking. I would have probably done the same.
A lot of groups would have killed him at the end of the shootout, killed him for running away and causing panic on the ice and then killed h… moreim again for shooting Clementine. I dunno if you watch the show but back in the early days, Rick's group had a kid in a similar situation to Arvo (got into a gunfight with) who they blindfolded and emotionally tortured. That old guy Dale I think his name was, had to practically beg Rick and co just to sleep on it when it came to killing him, then Shane let the kid think they were going to let him go and then killed him anyway... considering all that Maybe Arvo didn't have it all that bad lol.
I put him at 15 to 16 and no one is saying he's not accountable for his actions but the way he was treated was, imo, undeserved by someone who should be held more accountable for his actions than he is.
Jane and Clem don't 'steal' his gun per se. They just don't give it back to him because they'd be putting their own lives at risk if so. Arvo surely understood that, and thankfully, leaving him unarmed had no consequences.
I acknowledge that taking Arvo's gun ensured our own group's safety, primarily a pregnant woman's, but the fact that he had to walk defenseless for miles still stands, and it's also understandable that his sister, Buricko, and Vitali, were pissed off because of this.
Jane's reasoning and good intentions are not enough to exempt her from the responsability of the consequences of what she did.
In this case scenario the Russians attack for something that could've happened, but didn't and for an unintentional theft caused by time, place and circumstance, not only our group.
In my eyes, that doesn't justify trying to steal all our group's supplies. Asking for the gun back would be the approach of a reasonable group of people. Arvo's group ambushes us instead!
Exactly! A group of reasonable people would only have demanded their revolver and bag of medicine back, and not our entire supplies, though to me it's clear that Buricko and Vitali were unreasonable. My point that Jane's actions fueled their reaction still stands.
Besides, we didn't have any supplies other than the revolver and the bag of medicine; our own guns; a crowbar; a rope, a bottle of peroxide, some cloth, a bottle of rum and cigarettes; a nail file; and empty backpacks. Perhaps you had not realized that, which is entirely fine.
But Clem and Jane's approach was a reasonable one (if you don't steal, of course). They couldn't just arm this stranger. What would be stopping him from shooting them? I'm sure Arvo's group could understand why they did what they did.
Arvo had held Clementine at gunpoint and decided not to shoot her, then going to the extent of putting his gun away and introducing himself, all of which I consider to be cues that he would not harm Clementine nor Jane.
Clementine and Jane could have stayed hidden and avoided every single piece of conflict with Arvo's group.
If Clem stays hidden for long enough, Arvo finds her. Contact was inevitable, unfortunately.
Contact was avoidable. When Clementine spotted Arvo, they still had a decent amount of time to hide, and they could've gone down the flight of stairs that were in the room on the left—the one Jane uses when she leaves the group later in the episode.
If you propose waiting for him to go away ('Let's just wait him out') Jane will agree with that plan too, indicating that she only disarms Arvo in this scenario out of concern for Clem's safety.
Like I said, they could've fled instead of hiding.
Well, I think his group's actions are still condemnable and mainly unjustified. If you don't steal, out group is just a group of innocent people who chose to be a little cautious by not arming a Stranger.
You appear to have blocked the fact that Jane robbed Arvo of his gun. It's not that she was hesitant to arm him out of the blue—it was his gun and she took it away!
Sorry but their sense of justice is very wicked if they think people who simply disarmed a potential threat and threatened him to not mess with their group out of caution deserve to get stolen and ambushed. Those were simply words with a bit of physical intimidation (not even harm) in it, it was seriously not that big of a deal (besides being understandable).
My impression is that Arvo's group was in a desperate situation, as we saw how little supplies they had in the unfinished house. Jane taking his gun away only prompted the twisted Vitali and Buricko to decide to rob us. I do believe that they wouldn't have done it if we had avoided contact with Arvo.
It wasn't the best comparison. What I meant to say is that just because Arvo was following order from his intimidating leaders it doesn't make him completely blameless. He still took a part in the ambush.
Arvo and Natasha were in severe need, and the alternatives to taking part on the ambush on the people who took one of their guns were to be shot dead immediately, to be devoured shortly after or for Natasha to die of her sickness.
Now, they were partly responsible on the ambush because they took part, but I would argue that doesn't put the blame on them.
I am. Search 'Amid The Ruins The Silent Treatment' on youtube and you'll se a playthrough by '(wrong name, lol)'. (You won't believe how hard it was to find someone who didn't steal and didn't told the group that he needed help!) He says: 'These are my friends. We stay hidden for safety, but you... we know. You're Clementine. (Smile)'. Now, this smile and smugness may be just careless branching of voice lines, because if Arvo and Maud didn't really want to ambush everyone as everything else points out, him being happy about this is just wierd.
I'm not sure if the only way to avoid him saying this is by offering him help. Offering help is one of the ways for sure, though.
You will be surprised to hear what I will say below, but bear with me and I promise that everything will make sense by the end.
There are two routes that can take place just before the ambush.
In one of them, Clementine expresses concern toward Arvo and she has a chance to talk to him. He then says that he needs bandages, to which Bonnie asks if he is hurt, and he, in a dissapointed voice, replies that he isn't. The three other people on his group emerge from the woods and Buricko shouts. This one only happens if you chose to avoid stealing from Arvo!
In the other one, Clementine expresses worry over Arvo's return. Kenny questions him on what is going on, and Luke skeptically asks whether he is alone, to which Arvo replies that he isn't. Natasha emerges from the woods first, followed by Vitali and Buricko. Arvo portrays the smug line that you mentioned. This one happens if you chose to steal from him, and, due to a failure in the episode's development, it also happens if you didn't choose.
This is why, in the silent playthrough that you told me about, Arvo says the smug line even if the player didn't steal from him.
So... this is akward. Sorry for not responding to your comment earlier. ^~^
I've come to the conclusion that I won't waste my time on … moreit anymore
After today, so did I.
From my point of view, the man with the assault rifle and the one with the shotgun were keen on stealing from this group for revenge, for retaliation. This however was started by the theft of the gun, of the medical supplies, by the threat made to Arvo and also because the latter was left to walk defenseless for miles, where any walker could devour him effortlessly.
Jane and Clem don't 'steal' his gun per se. They just don't give it back to him because they'd be putting their own lives at risk if so. Arvo surely understood that, and thankfully, leaving him unarmed had no consequences.
In this case scenario the Russians attack for something that could've happened, but didn't and for an unintentional theft caused by time, place and circumstance, not o… [view original content]
For all that Arvo did, he should have been gunned down like a rabid dog. In the apocalypse, if you screw up that much, you die. I play in a compassionate way, yet I dropped Ben for his screwups. The group > me.
Arvo did what he did, Kenny did what he did but i still dont understand how can someone chose Jane over Kenny. She just showed up and you trust her more then him that is stupid. He went trough all that with Lee and other to protect her and you repay him by shooting him. F u he might be dangerus but so is Jane i cant decide on who is a bigger sociopath out the two. And for me Clem going on her own is not so got either.
I think what they were trying their darnest to get across is that Clementine and Jane are two of a kind (because Sarah couldn't also be that in a different way, apparently ), whereas no matter how much they bond and help each other, she and Kenny were just too different from each other to be able to work together for long. Their relationship really is based on the fact that they both knew Lee around the same time, while Jane actually got some screentime to bond with her.
As for how anyone could pick her over Kenny, spite, hate, or just plain not wanting to hang with a hot-tempered old man. There's also the fact that him snapping and killing someone is something almost no one wants to happen, no matter who the victim is. Do you want him to be Kenny the parent or Kenny the killer?
I acknowledge that taking Arvo's gun ensured our own group's safety, primarily a pregnant woman's, but the fact that he had to walk defenseless for miles still stands, and it's also understandable that his sister, Buricko, and Vitali, were pissed off because of this.
The fact that nothing happened to him still stands, though. They have the right to be pissed, but they don't have the right to steal everything we had based on something that could've been but wasn't.
Jane's reasoning and good intentions are not enough to exempt her from the responsability of the consequences of what she did.
That's my point. The only consequence of what she did was having that little gun ending up on the wrong group, which could be easily fixed if the Russian had just asked for it. Our actions are justifiable. Theirs are not. That's how I see it.
Exactly! A group of reasonable people would only have demanded their revolver and bag of medicine back, and not our entire supplies, though to me it's clear that Buricko and Vitali were unreasonable. My point that Jane's actions fueled their reaction still stands.
I wanted to mention that I've been searching for translations to the Russian lines. From what I've seen so far nothing ever indicates that Arvo and Natasha were against the ambush. You might've gotten it confused with them asking Buriko and Vitali to back off once they felt their lives were put at risk, which is very different from being against the plan beforehand.
I haven't found anything indicating that they were against the plan but If I do find something then sorry for doubting.
Besides, we didn't have any supplies other than the revolver and the bag of medicine; our own guns; a crowbar; a rope, a bottle of peroxide, some cloth, a bottle of rum and cigarettes; a nail file; and empty backpacks. Perhaps you had not realized that, which is entirely fine.
I do know that...? I mean, I don't know that for sure, maybe they had more stuff they didn't show on-screen, but still. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't make the Russian's attempted theft better or worse.
In adition to that list, we also had some baby formula and it's implied we had some food.
Arvo had held Clementine at gunpoint and decided not to shoot her, then going to the extent of putting his gun away and introducing himself, all of which I consider to be cues that he would not harm Clementine nor Jane.
Yeah, but Jane had just pissed him off by sugesting stealing from him, maybe his intentions could've changed? Maybe she didn't even heard that? Maybe she didn't care or trusted on the word of a complete stranger! It wasn't the time to take risks, people can't just put blind trust on strangers.
Clementine and Jane could have stayed hidden and avoided every single piece of conflict with Arvo's group.
Contact was avoidable. When Clementine spotted Arvo, they still had a decent amount of time to hide, and they could've gone down the flight of stairs that were in the room on the left—the one Jane uses when she leaves the group later in the episode.
Like I said, they could've fled instead of hiding.
I disagree. If Clem and Jane had some sort of telekinesis that allowed them to share thought in a fraction of second, maybe they could've both run off on time to not confront Arvo. And lets ignore the fact that they'd be giving the group's location to a complete stranger and would have to take the risk of getting shot by him. If you select the option 'Should we run for it?' Jane will say, 'Normally, I would. But it's too much of a risk. We can't lead him to the others...'.
The reality is that by the time Clem had finished informing Jane of the stranger's presence and had enough time to debate on how they should act, Arvo was already using the stairs. He was already so close that Jane and Clem had to hide in a hurry ('Shit, hide!'). It was physically impossible to flee, at least from what I see.
And lets not forget that blaming Clem and Jane just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is, in my honest opinon, ridiculous. If it worked that way, Arvo would be just as responsible for heading there as well. Or we could even blame the Russians for being in America in the first place!
We can't just blame it all on the characters when stuff happens because of circumstance. Jane was forced onto those circumstances. Arvo was forced onto those circumstances as well. And so was Clem.
We should be blaming the Russians for ambushing our group, and Clem and Jane for stealing from Arvo, because those actions weren't forced by any circumstances. Those actions came from selfishness or evilness from people's minds. Those actions are the ones that should be questioned.
Lemme give you an example. Kenny vs Jane.
Jane sets up an hypotetical situation which results on Kenny attacking her for no goddamned reason.
Now let's imagine Kenny is The Russians and Jane is, well... Jane! Jane's actions get the Russians mad, so the Russians end up attacking our group with little to no reason.
In both cases the 'Kenny' has the option to solve the conflict peacefully, preventing anyone from being hurt, and in both cases the 'Kenny' ends up choosing to overreact and do something terrible. The 'Jane' causes the situations, but she doesn't force the 'Kenny' to act in the terrible way that it does. In the end, who's to blame?
You appear to have blocked the fact that Jane robbed Arvo of his gun.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned the gun several times in my post and tried to explain on why Jane couldn't just let a recently pissed stranger armed while they had no means to defend themselves. I'll just be repeating myself here, I think I've made this point clear.
It's not that she was hesitant to arm him out of the blue—it was his gun and she took it away!
Yes it is, at least from what I knowabout Jane's character.
Are you saying that you think that she stole his gun in order to feel good about it or because she wanted it or something? I doubt you think that, this may be a misunderstanding.
My impression is that Arvo's group was in a desperate situation, as we saw how little supplies they had in the unfinished house. Jane taking his gun away only prompted the twisted Vitali and Buricko to decide to rob us. I do believe that they wouldn't have done it if we had avoided contact with Arvo.
You mean the two bags of canned food? And the other bag full of medicine and bottled water? Desprate situation...?
Even if they were in a desperate situation it still doesn't make their group's actions any more justifiable, as I imagine you're aware. Our group was in a very desperate situation and we didn't steal from them (at least I didn't).
And as I've said, I'm not seeing a scenario where Clem and Jane would successfully manage to espace the deck on time. Besides, why would they do such thing? Why would they just drop their plan of finding a good place for Rebecca and leaving her exposed just because a random stranger was coming towards them. Hiding or trying to talk to the stranger was their best option and they can do them both. It's not their fault that in both scenarios Arvo pulls out his gun. And it's also not Arvo's fault for pulling out his gun just because he was being cautious. It was all circumstance.
Arvo and Natasha were in severe need, and the alternatives to taking part on the ambush on the people who took one of their guns were to be shot dead immediately, to be devoured shortly after or for Natasha to die of her sickness.
I'm aware of that.
Now, they were partly responsible on the ambush because they took part, but I would argue that doesn't put the blame on them.
Well, as you may understand, I haven't seen any hard proof that Arvo or Natasha were against the plan beforehand, hence me doubting that they were just there forcefully. The smug lines and the fact that Natasha is already pointing a gun when she appears don't help as you may imagine.
Buriko and Vitali were obviously more presistent and (stupidly) brave than Arvo and Natasha since they presist on keeping the ambush up, while Arvo and Natasha ask for them to stop out of fear for their own lives. Nothing indicates that Natasha and Arvo weren't the ones who formulated the plan or that they even disagreed with it. Maybe Arvo and Natasha weren't aware that our group had so many people and that we were as well armed as we were and decided that it was best to walk away on the last second.
Again, I think people are just making out assumptions just because Vitali and Buriko have a more intimidating appearance and more intimidating lines.
due to a failure in the episode's development, it also happens if you didn't choose.
Well, you assume that, right? Maybe it is there on purpose in order to indicate that Arvo also intended for the ambush to happen. I mean, 'You will wish you hadn't sone this'... That's really suspicious. It's clear that he had it in him.
I hope you acknowledge that you could be wrong and that Arvo could've also intended for the ambush to happen just as I acknowledge that you may be right and that he may also be 'innocent'.
EDIT: Added a few things and corrected some typos.
EDIT 2: I've been replaying the game and I found the line Jane delivered. I figured I'd add it. Sorry for so many edits.
Jane and Clem don't 'steal' his gun per se. They just don't give it back to him because they'd be putting their own lives at risk if so. Arv… moreo surely understood that, and thankfully, leaving him unarmed had no consequences.
I acknowledge that taking Arvo's gun ensured our own group's safety, primarily a pregnant woman's, but the fact that he had to walk defenseless for miles still stands, and it's also understandable that his sister, Buricko, and Vitali, were pissed off because of this.
Jane's reasoning and good intentions are not enough to exempt her from the responsability of the consequences of what she did.
In this case scenario the Russians attack for something that could've happened, but didn't and for an unintentional theft caused by time, place and circumstance, not only our group.
In my eyes, that doesn't justify trying to steal all our group's supplies. Asking for the gun back would be the approach of a reason… [view original content]
Oh yeah, this was a thing. Well, I guess it's good timing because I just thought of another point earlier today.
Arvo was casted as the Disc Two/Interim Villain during the breather period after dealing with Carver. The level of threat he posed to the group was very different from that of Bill's: whereas Carver was major, insufferable, forceful, magnificent, and an absolute hate sink, Arvo was incidental, kindly, submissive, ineffectual, and a borderline designated villain. While I'm more than perfectly fine and dandy with him being a more sympathetic antagonist due to the setting, I knew that would mean I'd be up against someone who nothing to lose and everything to gain. And yet, for a multitude of reasons, it didn't really feel like I was really all that successful in my struggle against him. Why is it that fighting against this guy makes me feel so bad? The answer is actually mundane and simple: Guilt. Where Arvo succeeds as a character is where Carver (objectively)fails: he's not a bad person who does evil things for unsavory purposes, he's a neutral bystander who got unlucky, real unlucky, and had to make what ended up being a bad decision for justifiable reasons. With that said, Arvo fails as a villain where Carver succeeds because he lacks the ambition, the malice, and the misdeeds necessary to antagonize people and enjoy doing so for his grand design; he's just some handicapped guy who risked himself trying to keep his older sister alive and failed. Whether intentional or not, Clementine had a hand in ruining his life--his self-defense, his sick sister, his (admittedly brutish) leader, his group, his unfinished house, his rationed food, his brokedown truck--all compromised because we met under such nebulous circumstances. And at what cost? Luke's leg, Kenny's patience, Bonnie's trust, and a shoulder in the bullet? ...Okay, that last one was actually kinda annoying, but the point being Clementine did more to hurt this guy in seconds than he ever did to hurt her in days. His lack of adequate villainy is also reinforced by the fact that most of the bad things that happen after the first encounter with him probably would've happened anyway. Sarah was ["canonically"] killed in the same location and under similar circumstances that lead to his gun being stolen, Rebecca died because she simply just lost to much blood to recover from her rest, and Kenny still would've gone rabid at some point or another; Arvo just gave him an outlet for that process. And while Luke, Mike, and Bonnie's place in the group was indirectly strained to a breaking point due to his effect on the group, it had very little to do with what he did as an individual: Luke was a victim of an environmental hazard when he stepped on a bad spot on the ice that his unstable balance did not help, Bonnie had lost any real hope or investment when he went under, and Mike simply couldn't deal with Kenny's corporal behavior anymore. The only things I'd blame him for are being complicit in punishing the whole group for what one(or two) person did and shooting the minor Clementine, something he previously had enough issues with to change his tune. And both of those were only after her group did something endanger him, so they would fall under misplaced retribution.
[Some of the following is shamelessly rehashed from other conversations:]
And then there's the obvious fact that this guy is out of his depth when it comes to his peers: a scary opportunist(Buricko, Jane), some nut with impulse issues(Vitali, Kenny), and an individual who is normally pretty nice but could still probably dominate him in they really wanted to(Natasha, pretty much anyone not in the other categories). Whether he actually agreed with their way of doing things or not, Arvo was clearly not one to talk back. While it's true that Arvo lead his group to Clementine's, I'm pretty sure he wasn't the leader, at least not an authoritatively official one. Buricko was clearly the one giving orders in that group, as he tells Arvo. Arvo just seemed to be their liaison, packmule/stoolpidgeon, and possible meal ticket. If he was their leader, he was probably a leader in the sense that either Buricko put him in charge of this mission(like Randall did with Zachary) or like Clementine could be called the leader of her group--which actually sounds kinda cool, to be honest. (Oh, the missed opportunities.) Also note that even if you hadn't taken his medicine, Jane still took his gun, threatened him with it, and then tried to convince Clementine that they should steal it to his face. He still had a reason to be angry and while he does bring his group along to get even, he clearly was a bit conflicted about outright robbing the Howe's Ski Cabin Group, even if Clementine took the medicine. It was Buricko's idea to rob the entire group and while Arvo didn't really argue against him, he clearly had scruples about doing so that causes him to hesitate--seeing the baby only gave him a legitimate argument to convince Buricko to back off. He was really just getting [un]even with no apparent intention of actually hurting anyone and move on. Arvo is at best a completely neutral party who only overreacted due to things that were done to him first or at worse an ineffectual sympathetic villain who would've liked to be friends with Clementine if she was kind to him but was dragged down into being her enemy due to the actions of Jane. After being ridiculed by his own group members, trying to stop the violence before it really began, losing his sick sister who also tried to stop the violence, and being repeatedly abused by Kenny until Mike freed him, it becomes clear that he is just some easy target who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and made a few bad decisions that left him as a sole survivor who lashed out after a conga of trauma and was forced into being villainy due to heroes' actions. Him shooting Clementine crossed the line, yes, but fortunately she survived the shot with the bullet exiting her body.
Here's Arvo's problem in this setup: his name is not Clementine, the main character. If we were to look at it from a neutral standpoint, neither side is truly bad: Clementine was just looking for a place for Rebecca to have her baby, Arvo was just looking for a place to stash some medicine for Natasha, both happened to pick the same spot by coincidence and met under uneasy circumstances. When she suddenly revealed herself, he understandably drew his gun in self-defense, though it's obvious from his shaking hand and nervous expression that he's just afraid of being attacked and doesn't actually want to shoot anyone, even though said attacker is a little girl he had no way of knowing was a badass and (determinate) sociopath. The two can have a relatively civil conversation and attempt to part on decent terms, when Jane, a third party who happened to be tagging along with Clementine, suddenly jumps him from behind and holds him at gunpoint while ordering Clementine to search his bag. While Clementine's take on what to do with his medicine is ultimately her choice to make, Arvo now has a reason to be angry with the two: they took his only defense, stuck him up with it, and then attempted(or succeeded) to steal his stash of medicine, in direct spite of the fact that his sister needs it if she's going to had a fair chance at survival. So, whether with the bag or without, Arvo is aggressively threatened by Jane at gunpoint before being sent on his way back home, where he no doubt had to tell Natasha what happened to him, sparking their later ambush of the Howe's Ski Cabin Group because of Clementine's presence. You see, if the tables were turned here and Arvo was the main character or even a major one, he would technically be just as in the right as Clementine would: if he had approached Clementine while her back was turned, Buricko attacked her despite Arvo's attempts to simply reason with her, he got to make the call over whether they steal from her or not(and determinately made the same choice she did), and then Clementine went to fetch her group with Jane ordering her to rob his entire group for what Buricko did despite her misgivings about it, would'nt it be basically the same? Assuming it (somehow) ended with similar results with her as Vitali's prisoner with Arvo having just as little a say in how he treats her as she does with Kenny, how would it be any different (aside from the gender and obvious age difference) between the two? It's the same basic conflict: One acted against the other, the other reacted against the one, and then it just spiraled from there with the other growing resentful over what the one helped kick-start by association.
Not trying to derail, but I see a lot of people using his age as a defense or part of a argument otherwise, with estimates in the 14-16 rang… moree. That's as old as Sarah would be. I always put him at 17 at the youngest, which is old enough to me to be held accountable for your actions
If you murder someone for messing up a few times, you're not unlike Carver.
Look, Arvo was just as old as Ben was and Argo just had lost his sister, one of the last things that mattered to him; expect someone to not think clearly after losing someone they love.
For all that Arvo did, he should have been gunned down like a rabid dog. In the apocalypse, if you screw up that much, you die. I play in a compassionate way, yet I dropped Ben for his screwups. The group > me.
Shooting Kenneth was one of the better decisions because he was losing it and forgetting what was right and wrong. He was mad with hate and anger. In reality, I wouldn't try to shoot anyone, but in TWD you have to make a choice.
Jane was right in some areas about Ken as was Luke; broken people get reckless. Ken was reckless the instant he started blaming Clementine for the death of Sarita.
Yeah, that was abusive on Kenneth's part. He was racially slandering Arvo, abusing him physically, verbally, and emotionally, and he blamed Arvo for things that nobody was even to blame for in the first place.
Listen, unless you can come up with a better argument than he shot at Clementine and brought his group to confront Clementine's, then discussion over.
Oh yeah, this was a thing. Well, I guess it's good timing because I just thought of another point earlier today.
Arvo was casted as the D… moreisc Two/Interim Villain during the breather period after dealing with Carver. The level of threat he posed to the group was very different from that of Bill's: whereas Carver was major, insufferable, forceful, magnificent, and an absolute hate sink, Arvo was incidental, kindly, submissive, ineffectual, and a borderline designated villain. While I'm more than perfectly fine and dandy with him being a more sympathetic antagonist due to the setting, I knew that would mean I'd be up against someone who nothing to lose and everything to gain. And yet, for a multitude of reasons, it didn't really feel like I was really all that successful in my struggle against him. Why is it that fighting against this guy makes me feel so bad? The answer is actually mundane and simple: Guilt. Where Arvo succeeds as a characte… [view original content]
Only, Arvo had actually hit Clementine. And to help with the hatred for Arvo, we didn't hear his story after shit went down.
People forgave Nick because we heard his story after he nearly shot us and there was no buildup to before Nick shot at Clementine. People had plenty of time to hate Arvo before he actually shot Clementine.
People were ok with Nick almost killing 11 year old Clementine but not ok with Arvo. Nick lost his mom, that's why he was on edge. Arvo lost his sister, that's why he was on edge.
You sound like you're racially slandering Arvo. Watch yourself. You could easily have mods up your tail.
And Nick almost shot Clementine at the beginning of the game (KEYWORD BEING ALMOST) but nobody hated him. Why? Because there was no buildup to it! We didn't have time to hate Nick for shooting at Clementine, but we had plenty of time to hate Arvo before he shot her.
And speaking of shooting a little sister; Clementine shot Arvo'a sister, Natasha. Although it was because she had reanimated, Arvo WAS NOT AWARE that she had turned and assumed Clementine murdered his sister, who was unarmed and already injured.
Do you really think someone who shot a little kid who didn't do shit to him and left her for dead dosen't deserve hate?
How would you feel if you had a little sister who was shot by some random dick and then the dick left her for dead? Huh?
Good point. I'll edit my comment. I'm sorry for the racism.
Watch yourself. You could easily have mods up your tail.
I could get mods up my tail for talking about a video game character...? This is a forum anyway. Ranting is to be expected.
And Nick almost shot Clementine at the beginning of the game (KEYWORD BEING ALMOST) but nobody hated him.
He apologized, tho. And he also thought Clementine was bitten. He didn't want the group to be at risk! After what happened to his mother, that I can understand!
And speaking of shooting a little sister; Clementine shot Arvo'a sister, Natasha.
SHE WAS A WALKER.
Although it was because she had reanimated, Arvo WAS NOT AWARE that she had turned and assumed Clementine murdered his sister, who was unarmed and already injured.
I can understand that. I really can. I can also understand why he ran away from Kenny on the frozen lake; he was scared. But I will never forgive him for shooting Clem. Unless he apologizes. Which he probably won't.
You sound like you're racially slandering Arvo. Watch yourself. You could easily have mods up your tail.
And Nick almost shot Clementine … moreat the beginning of the game (KEYWORD BEING ALMOST) but nobody hated him. Why? Because there was no buildup to it! We didn't have time to hate Nick for shooting at Clementine, but we had plenty of time to hate Arvo before he shot her.
And speaking of shooting a little sister; Clementine shot Arvo'a sister, Natasha. Although it was because she had reanimated, Arvo WAS NOT AWARE that she had turned and assumed Clementine murdered his sister, who was unarmed and already injured.
No, he won't, because he might not see her again (which he might not, unless TTG has another card up their sleeves for Season 3). However, the only reason he ran was because Kenny would've most likely tortured then killed the boy if he caught him after Arvo shot Clementine.
You sound like you're racially slandering Arvo.
Good point. I'll edit my comment. I'm sorry for the racism.
Watch yourself. Yo… moreu could easily have mods up your tail.
I could get mods up my tail for talking about a video game character...? This is a forum anyway. Ranting is to be expected.
And Nick almost shot Clementine at the beginning of the game (KEYWORD BEING ALMOST) but nobody hated him.
He apologized, tho. And he also thought Clementine was bitten. He didn't want the group to be at risk! After what happened to his mother, that I can understand!
And speaking of shooting a little sister; Clementine shot Arvo'a sister, Natasha.
SHE WAS A WALKER.
Although it was because she had reanimated, Arvo WAS NOT AWARE that she had turned and assumed Clementine murdered his sister, who was unarmed and already injured.
I can understand that. I really can. I can also understand why he ran aw… [view original content]
No, he won't, because he might not see her again (which he might not, unless TTG has another card up their sleeves for Season 3). However, t… morehe only reason he ran was because Kenny would've most likely tortured then killed the boy if he caught him after Arvo shot Clementine.
Well, I'm worried that if they DO bring Arvo back in S3, then chances are at least 99% of players won't forgive Arvo for what he did, judging by what's been said in this thread.
No, he won't, because he might not see her again (which he might not, unless TTG has another card up their sleeves for Season 3).
Fi… morengers sort of crossed.
However, the only reason he ran was because Kenny would've most likely tortured then killed the boy if he caught him after Arvo shot Clementine.
That's exactly what I meant...
If he appears in Season 3, and he apologizes, I will consider forgiving him.
However, I will have my guard up. Last time someone apologized to me in TWD and then I forgave them...well, let's just say she was a treacherous scumbag.
Ah, sorry.
Well, I'm worried that if they DO bring Arvo back in S3, then chances are at least 99% of players won't forgive Arvo for what he did, judging by what's been said in this thread.
If he appears in Season 3, and he apologizes, I will consider forgiving him.
However, I will have my guard up. Last time someone apologized to me in TWD and then I forgave them...well, let's just say she was a treacherous scumbag.
He was racially slandering Arvo, abusing him physically, verbally, and emotionally, and he blamed Arvo for things that nobody was even to blame for in the first place.
This. I can understand being agree at Arvo, tying him up, even giving him a percussive noogie after the battle. But the extent to which Kenny mistreated him beyond that was too much. To paraphrase myself:
"Mistreating and wishing ill on someone who is weaker than you doesn't make you an antihero--it makes you a bully."
I didn't tolerate that shit from Jane and I did not tolerate that from Kenny.
Yeah, that was abusive on Kenneth's part. He was racially slandering Arvo, abusing him physically, verbally, and emotionally, and he blamed … moreArvo for things that nobody was even to blame for in the first place.
Listen, unless you can come up with a better argument than he shot at Clementine and brought his group to confront Clementine's, then discussion over.
Understandable, all things considering.
Another thing we need to consider is that if people were being dicks to Arvo he may come back with a vengeance rather than a heavy heart.
If he appears in Season 3, and he apologizes, I will consider forgiving him
Ditto, to a point. More like I want to confront him over what happened between us period and then decide how to best resolve the issue. If one of my predictions does end up coming true, though, he might find himself in a cell.
However, I will have my guard up. Last time someone apologized to me in TWD and then I forgave them...well, let's just say she was a treacherous scumbag.
If he appears in Season 3, and he apologizes, I will consider forgiving him.
However, I will have my guard up. Last time someone apologized to me in TWD and then I forgave them...well, let's just say she was a treacherous scumbag.
Comments
because fuck him thats why.
So... this is akward. Sorry for not responding to your comment earlier. ^~^
After today, so did I.
Jane and Clem don't 'steal' his gun per se. They just don't give it back to him because they'd be putting their own lives at risk if so. Arvo surely understood that, and thankfully, leaving him unarmed had no consequences.
In this case scenario the Russians attack for something that could've happened, but didn't and for an unintentional theft caused by time, place and circumstance, not only our group.
In my eyes, that doesn't justify trying to steal all our group's supplies. Asking for the gun back would be the approach of a reasonable group of people. Arvo's group ambushes us instead!
But Clem and Jane's approach was a reasonable one (if you don't steal, of course). They couldn't just arm this stranger. What would be stopping him from shooting them? I'm sure Arvo's group could understand why they did what they did.
If Clem stays hidden for long enough, Arvo finds her. Contact was inevitable, unfortunately.
If you propose waiting for him to go away ('Let's just wait him out') Jane will agree with that plan too, indicating that she only disarms Arvo in this scenario out of concern for Clem's safety.
Well, I think his group's actions are still condemnable and mainly unjustified. If you don't steal, out group is just a group of innocent people who chose to be a little cautious by not arming a Stranger.
Sorry but their sense of justice is very wicked if they think people who simply disarmed a potential threat and threatened him to not mess with their group out of caution deserve to get stolen and ambushed. Those were simply words with a bit of physical intimidation (not even harm) in it, it was seriously not that big of a deal (besides being understandable).
It wasn't the best comparison. What I meant to say is that just because Arvo was following order from his intimidating leaders it doesn't make him completely blameless. He still took a part in the ambush.
I am. Search 'Amid The Ruins The Silent Treatment' on youtube and you'll se a playthrough by '(wrong name, lol)'. (You won't believe how hard it was to find someone who didn't steal and didn't told the group that he needed help!) He says: 'These are my friends. We stay hidden for safety, but you... we know. You're Clementine. (Smile)'. Now, this smile and smugness may be just careless branching of voice lines, because if Arvo and Maud didn't really want to ambush everyone as everything else points out, him being happy about this is just wierd.
I'm not sure if the only way to avoid him saying this is by offering him help. Offering help is one of the ways for sure, though.
I saw that sneaky typo correction.
I have mixed feelings about emojis. Sometimes I find it anoying that a yellow ugly face pops up in the middle of my comment : /.
etimes, 
thoug, 
I fe 
el like spamm 
ing the living 
hell ou 
t of them 
.
Som
Hello?
Not trying to derail, but I see a lot of people using his age as a defense or part of a argument otherwise, with estimates in the 14-16 range. That's as old as Sarah would be. I always put him at 17 at the youngest, which is old enough to me to be held accountable for your actions
I put him at 15 to 16 and no one is saying he's not accountable for his actions but the way he was treated was, imo, undeserved by someone who should be held more accountable for his actions than he is.
A lot of groups would have killed him at the end of the shootout, killed him for running away and causing panic on the ice and then killed him again for shooting Clementine. I dunno if you watch the show but back in the early days, Rick's group had a kid in a similar situation to Arvo (got into a gunfight with) who they blindfolded and emotionally tortured. That old guy Dale I think his name was, had to practically beg Rick and co just to sleep on it when it came to killing him, then Shane let the kid think they were going to let him go and then killed him anyway... considering all that Maybe Arvo didn't have it all that bad lol.
Woah, spoilers! Dark spoilers at that!
Yeah, I do remember that with Randall. Not their finest hour. I was especially disappointed with Daryl for torturing him, and I mean physically torturing him.
I don't want to think about how it could have been worse for him, I only care about what was actually happening. That was more than bad enough considering the kid was helpless, and I don't blamed one bit for panicking. I would have probably done the same.
I just don't see how he looks or acts as old as Sarah or Becca. To me he seems like a young adult like Ben, not young teen.
I acknowledge that taking Arvo's gun ensured our own group's safety, primarily a pregnant woman's, but the fact that he had to walk defenseless for miles still stands, and it's also understandable that his sister, Buricko, and Vitali, were pissed off because of this.
Jane's reasoning and good intentions are not enough to exempt her from the responsability of the consequences of what she did.
Exactly! A group of reasonable people would only have demanded their revolver and bag of medicine back, and not our entire supplies, though to me it's clear that Buricko and Vitali were unreasonable. My point that Jane's actions fueled their reaction still stands.
Besides, we didn't have any supplies other than the revolver and the bag of medicine; our own guns; a crowbar; a rope, a bottle of peroxide, some cloth, a bottle of rum and cigarettes; a nail file; and empty backpacks. Perhaps you had not realized that, which is entirely fine.
Arvo had held Clementine at gunpoint and decided not to shoot her, then going to the extent of putting his gun away and introducing himself, all of which I consider to be cues that he would not harm Clementine nor Jane.
Clementine and Jane could have stayed hidden and avoided every single piece of conflict with Arvo's group.
Contact was avoidable. When Clementine spotted Arvo, they still had a decent amount of time to hide, and they could've gone down the flight of stairs that were in the room on the left—the one Jane uses when she leaves the group later in the episode.
Like I said, they could've fled instead of hiding.
You appear to have blocked the fact that Jane robbed Arvo of his gun. It's not that she was hesitant to arm him out of the blue—it was his gun and she took it away!
My impression is that Arvo's group was in a desperate situation, as we saw how little supplies they had in the unfinished house. Jane taking his gun away only prompted the twisted Vitali and Buricko to decide to rob us. I do believe that they wouldn't have done it if we had avoided contact with Arvo.
Arvo and Natasha were in severe need, and the alternatives to taking part on the ambush on the people who took one of their guns were to be shot dead immediately, to be devoured shortly after or for Natasha to die of her sickness.
Now, they were partly responsible on the ambush because they took part, but I would argue that doesn't put the blame on them.
You will be surprised to hear what I will say below, but bear with me and I promise that everything will make sense by the end.
There are two routes that can take place just before the ambush.
In one of them, Clementine expresses concern toward Arvo and she has a chance to talk to him. He then says that he needs bandages, to which Bonnie asks if he is hurt, and he, in a dissapointed voice, replies that he isn't. The three other people on his group emerge from the woods and Buricko shouts.
This one only happens if you chose to avoid stealing from Arvo!
In the other one, Clementine expresses worry over Arvo's return. Kenny questions him on what is going on, and Luke skeptically asks whether he is alone, to which Arvo replies that he isn't. Natasha emerges from the woods first, followed by Vitali and Buricko. Arvo portrays the smug line that you mentioned.
This one happens if you chose to steal from him, and, due to a failure in the episode's development, it also happens if you didn't choose.
This is why, in the silent playthrough that you told me about, Arvo says the smug line even if the player didn't steal from him.
For all that Arvo did, he should have been gunned down like a rabid dog. In the apocalypse, if you screw up that much, you die. I play in a compassionate way, yet I dropped Ben for his screwups. The group > me.
Eh, he was just a victim of terrible writing much like every other character in S2.
Arvo did what he did, Kenny did what he did but i still dont understand how can someone chose Jane over Kenny. She just showed up and you trust her more then him that is stupid. He went trough all that with Lee and other to protect her and you repay him by shooting him. F u he might be dangerus but so is Jane i cant decide on who is a bigger sociopath out the two. And for me Clem going on her own is not so got either.
I think what they were trying their darnest to get across is that Clementine and Jane are two of a kind (because Sarah couldn't also be that in a different way, apparently
), whereas no matter how much they bond and help each other, she and Kenny were just too different from each other to be able to work together for long. Their relationship really is based on the fact that they both knew Lee around the same time, while Jane actually got some screentime to bond with her.
As for how anyone could pick her over Kenny, spite, hate, or just plain not wanting to hang with a hot-tempered old man. There's also the fact that him snapping and killing someone is something almost no one wants to happen, no matter who the victim is. Do you want him to be Kenny the parent or Kenny the killer?
The fact that nothing happened to him still stands, though. They have the right to be pissed, but they don't have the right to steal everything we had based on something that could've been but wasn't.
That's my point. The only consequence of what she did was having that little gun ending up on the wrong group, which could be easily fixed if the Russian had just asked for it. Our actions are justifiable. Theirs are not. That's how I see it.
I wanted to mention that I've been searching for translations to the Russian lines. From what I've seen so far nothing ever indicates that Arvo and Natasha were against the ambush. You might've gotten it confused with them asking Buriko and Vitali to back off once they felt their lives were put at risk, which is very different from being against the plan beforehand.
I haven't found anything indicating that they were against the plan but If I do find something then sorry for doubting.
I do know that...? I mean, I don't know that for sure, maybe they had more stuff they didn't show on-screen, but still. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't make the Russian's attempted theft better or worse.
In adition to that list, we also had some baby formula and it's implied we had some food.
Yeah, but Jane had just pissed him off by sugesting stealing from him, maybe his intentions could've changed? Maybe she didn't even heard that? Maybe she didn't care or trusted on the word of a complete stranger! It wasn't the time to take risks, people can't just put blind trust on strangers.
I disagree. If Clem and Jane had some sort of telekinesis that allowed them to share thought in a fraction of second, maybe they could've both run off on time to not confront Arvo. And lets ignore the fact that they'd be giving the group's location to a complete stranger and would have to take the risk of getting shot by him. If you select the option 'Should we run for it?' Jane will say, 'Normally, I would. But it's too much of a risk. We can't lead him to the others...'.
The reality is that by the time Clem had finished informing Jane of the stranger's presence and had enough time to debate on how they should act, Arvo was already using the stairs. He was already so close that Jane and Clem had to hide in a hurry ('Shit, hide!'). It was physically impossible to flee, at least from what I see.
And lets not forget that blaming Clem and Jane just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is, in my honest opinon, ridiculous. If it worked that way, Arvo would be just as responsible for heading there as well. Or we could even blame the Russians for being in America in the first place!
We can't just blame it all on the characters when stuff happens because of circumstance. Jane was forced onto those circumstances. Arvo was forced onto those circumstances as well. And so was Clem.
We should be blaming the Russians for ambushing our group, and Clem and Jane for stealing from Arvo, because those actions weren't forced by any circumstances. Those actions came from selfishness or evilness from people's minds. Those actions are the ones that should be questioned.
Lemme give you an example. Kenny vs Jane.
Jane sets up an hypotetical situation which results on Kenny attacking her for no goddamned reason.
Now let's imagine Kenny is The Russians and Jane is, well... Jane! Jane's actions get the Russians mad, so the Russians end up attacking our group with little to no reason.
In both cases the 'Kenny' has the option to solve the conflict peacefully, preventing anyone from being hurt, and in both cases the 'Kenny' ends up choosing to overreact and do something terrible. The 'Jane' causes the situations, but she doesn't force the 'Kenny' to act in the terrible way that it does. In the end, who's to blame?
I'm pretty sure I mentioned the gun several times in my post and tried to explain on why Jane couldn't just let a recently pissed stranger armed while they had no means to defend themselves. I'll just be repeating myself here, I think I've made this point clear.
Yes it is, at least from what I knowabout Jane's character.
Are you saying that you think that she stole his gun in order to feel good about it or because she wanted it or something? I doubt you think that, this may be a misunderstanding.
You mean the two bags of canned food? And the other bag full of medicine and bottled water? Desprate situation...?
Even if they were in a desperate situation it still doesn't make their group's actions any more justifiable, as I imagine you're aware. Our group was in a very desperate situation and we didn't steal from them (at least I didn't).
And as I've said, I'm not seeing a scenario where Clem and Jane would successfully manage to espace the deck on time. Besides, why would they do such thing? Why would they just drop their plan of finding a good place for Rebecca and leaving her exposed just because a random stranger was coming towards them. Hiding or trying to talk to the stranger was their best option and they can do them both. It's not their fault that in both scenarios Arvo pulls out his gun. And it's also not Arvo's fault for pulling out his gun just because he was being cautious. It was all circumstance.
I'm aware of that.
Well, as you may understand, I haven't seen any hard proof that Arvo or Natasha were against the plan beforehand, hence me doubting that they were just there forcefully. The smug lines and the fact that Natasha is already pointing a gun when she appears don't help as you may imagine.
Buriko and Vitali were obviously more presistent and (stupidly) brave than Arvo and Natasha since they presist on keeping the ambush up, while Arvo and Natasha ask for them to stop out of fear for their own lives. Nothing indicates that Natasha and Arvo weren't the ones who formulated the plan or that they even disagreed with it. Maybe Arvo and Natasha weren't aware that our group had so many people and that we were as well armed as we were and decided that it was best to walk away on the last second.
Again, I think people are just making out assumptions just because Vitali and Buriko have a more intimidating appearance and more intimidating lines.
Well, you assume that, right? Maybe it is there on purpose in order to indicate that Arvo also intended for the ambush to happen. I mean, 'You will wish you hadn't sone this'... That's really suspicious. It's clear that he had it in him.
I hope you acknowledge that you could be wrong and that Arvo could've also intended for the ambush to happen just as I acknowledge that you may be right and that he may also be 'innocent'.
EDIT: Added a few things and corrected some typos.
EDIT 2: I've been replaying the game and I found the line Jane delivered. I figured I'd add it. Sorry for so many edits.
That's probably the most blunt I've ever seen you be.
I'm glad Kenny beat his ass.
Not to mention that Bandits were already pre-established as having certain ways of working and Arvo's group don't really fit that description.
Oh yeah, this was a thing. Well, I guess it's good timing because I just thought of another point earlier today.
Arvo was casted as the Disc Two/Interim Villain during the breather period after dealing with Carver. The level of threat he posed to the group was very different from that of Bill's: whereas Carver was major, insufferable, forceful, magnificent, and an absolute hate sink, Arvo was incidental, kindly, submissive, ineffectual, and a borderline designated villain. While I'm more than perfectly fine and dandy with him being a more sympathetic antagonist due to the setting, I knew that would mean I'd be up against someone who nothing to lose and everything to gain. And yet, for a multitude of reasons, it didn't really feel like I was really all that successful in my struggle against him. Why is it that fighting against this guy makes me feel so bad? The answer is actually mundane and simple: Guilt. Where Arvo succeeds as a character is where Carver (objectively)fails: he's not a bad person who does evil things for unsavory purposes, he's a neutral bystander who got unlucky, real unlucky, and had to make what ended up being a bad decision for justifiable reasons. With that said, Arvo fails as a villain where Carver succeeds because he lacks the ambition, the malice, and the misdeeds necessary to antagonize people and enjoy doing so for his grand design; he's just some handicapped guy who risked himself trying to keep his older sister alive and failed. Whether intentional or not, Clementine had a hand in ruining his life--his self-defense, his sick sister, his (admittedly brutish) leader, his group, his unfinished house, his rationed food, his brokedown truck--all compromised because we met under such nebulous circumstances. And at what cost? Luke's leg, Kenny's patience, Bonnie's trust, and a shoulder in the bullet? ...Okay, that last one was actually kinda annoying, but the point being Clementine did more to hurt this guy in seconds than he ever did to hurt her in days. His lack of adequate villainy is also reinforced by the fact that most of the bad things that happen after the first encounter with him probably would've happened anyway. Sarah was ["canonically"] killed in the same location and under similar circumstances that lead to his gun being stolen, Rebecca died because she simply just lost to much blood to recover from her rest, and Kenny still would've gone rabid at some point or another; Arvo just gave him an outlet for that process. And while Luke, Mike, and Bonnie's place in the group was indirectly strained to a breaking point due to his effect on the group, it had very little to do with what he did as an individual: Luke was a victim of an environmental hazard when he stepped on a bad spot on the ice that his unstable balance did not help, Bonnie had lost any real hope or investment when he went under, and Mike simply couldn't deal with Kenny's corporal behavior anymore. The only things I'd blame him for are being complicit in punishing the whole group for what one(or two) person did and shooting the minor Clementine, something he previously had enough issues with to change his tune. And both of those were only after her group did something endanger him, so they would fall under misplaced retribution.
[Some of the following is shamelessly rehashed from other conversations:]
And then there's the obvious fact that this guy is out of his depth when it comes to his peers: a scary opportunist(Buricko, Jane), some nut with impulse issues(Vitali, Kenny), and an individual who is normally pretty nice but could still probably dominate him in they really wanted to(Natasha, pretty much anyone not in the other categories). Whether he actually agreed with their way of doing things or not, Arvo was clearly not one to talk back. While it's true that Arvo lead his group to Clementine's, I'm pretty sure he wasn't the leader, at least not an authoritatively official one. Buricko was clearly the one giving orders in that group, as he tells Arvo. Arvo just seemed to be their liaison, packmule/stoolpidgeon, and possible meal ticket. If he was their leader, he was probably a leader in the sense that either Buricko put him in charge of this mission(like Randall did with Zachary) or like Clementine could be called the leader of her group--which actually sounds kinda cool, to be honest. (Oh, the missed opportunities.) Also note that even if you hadn't taken his medicine, Jane still took his gun, threatened him with it, and then tried to convince Clementine that they should steal it to his face. He still had a reason to be angry and while he does bring his group along to get even, he clearly was a bit conflicted about outright robbing the Howe's Ski Cabin Group, even if Clementine took the medicine. It was Buricko's idea to rob the entire group and while Arvo didn't really argue against him, he clearly had scruples about doing so that causes him to hesitate--seeing the baby only gave him a legitimate argument to convince Buricko to back off. He was really just getting [un]even with no apparent intention of actually hurting anyone and move on. Arvo is at best a completely neutral party who only overreacted due to things that were done to him first or at worse an ineffectual sympathetic villain who would've liked to be friends with Clementine if she was kind to him but was dragged down into being her enemy due to the actions of Jane. After being ridiculed by his own group members, trying to stop the violence before it really began, losing his sick sister who also tried to stop the violence, and being repeatedly abused by Kenny until Mike freed him, it becomes clear that he is just some easy target who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and made a few bad decisions that left him as a sole survivor who lashed out after a conga of trauma and was forced into being villainy due to heroes' actions. Him shooting Clementine crossed the line, yes, but fortunately she survived the shot with the bullet exiting her body.
Here's Arvo's problem in this setup: his name is not Clementine, the main character. If we were to look at it from a neutral standpoint, neither side is truly bad: Clementine was just looking for a place for Rebecca to have her baby, Arvo was just looking for a place to stash some medicine for Natasha, both happened to pick the same spot by coincidence and met under uneasy circumstances. When she suddenly revealed herself, he understandably drew his gun in self-defense, though it's obvious from his shaking hand and nervous expression that he's just afraid of being attacked and doesn't actually want to shoot anyone, even though said attacker is a little girl he had no way of knowing was a badass and (determinate) sociopath. The two can have a relatively civil conversation and attempt to part on decent terms, when Jane, a third party who happened to be tagging along with Clementine, suddenly jumps him from behind and holds him at gunpoint while ordering Clementine to search his bag. While Clementine's take on what to do with his medicine is ultimately her choice to make, Arvo now has a reason to be angry with the two: they took his only defense, stuck him up with it, and then attempted(or succeeded) to steal his stash of medicine, in direct spite of the fact that his sister needs it if she's going to had a fair chance at survival. So, whether with the bag or without, Arvo is aggressively threatened by Jane at gunpoint before being sent on his way back home, where he no doubt had to tell Natasha what happened to him, sparking their later ambush of the Howe's Ski Cabin Group because of Clementine's presence. You see, if the tables were turned here and Arvo was the main character or even a major one, he would technically be just as in the right as Clementine would: if he had approached Clementine while her back was turned, Buricko attacked her despite Arvo's attempts to simply reason with her, he got to make the call over whether they steal from her or not(and determinately made the same choice she did), and then Clementine went to fetch her group with Jane ordering her to rob his entire group for what Buricko did despite her misgivings about it, would'nt it be basically the same? Assuming it (somehow) ended with similar results with her as Vitali's prisoner with Arvo having just as little a say in how he treats her as she does with Kenny, how would it be any different (aside from the gender and obvious age difference) between the two? It's the same basic conflict: One acted against the other, the other reacted against the one, and then it just spiraled from there with the other growing resentful over what the one helped kick-start by association.
This guy gets it.
I don't think he'd want that.
You're not too far off; wiki says late teens = 17-19 but he doesn't look like he'd be out of high school yet.
I agree, the age thing is a poor excuse. I myself haven't used the argument but some people do and it's stupid.
If you murder someone for messing up a few times, you're not unlike Carver.
Look, Arvo was just as old as Ben was and Argo just had lost his sister, one of the last things that mattered to him; expect someone to not think clearly after losing someone they love.
Agreed.
Do you really think someone who shot a little kid who didn't do shit to him and left her for dead dosen't deserve hate?
How would you feel if you had a little sister who was shot by some random dick and then the dick left her for dead? Huh?
Shooting Kenneth was one of the better decisions because he was losing it and forgetting what was right and wrong. He was mad with hate and anger. In reality, I wouldn't try to shoot anyone, but in TWD you have to make a choice.
Jane was right in some areas about Ken as was Luke; broken people get reckless. Ken was reckless the instant he started blaming Clementine for the death of Sarita.
Yeah, that was abusive on Kenneth's part. He was racially slandering Arvo, abusing him physically, verbally, and emotionally, and he blamed Arvo for things that nobody was even to blame for in the first place.
Listen, unless you can come up with a better argument than he shot at Clementine and brought his group to confront Clementine's, then discussion over.
Holy cow, that was a lot to read...
^(•-•)^ YUS!
Only, Arvo had actually hit Clementine. And to help with the hatred for Arvo, we didn't hear his story after shit went down.
People forgave Nick because we heard his story after he nearly shot us and there was no buildup to before Nick shot at Clementine. People had plenty of time to hate Arvo before he actually shot Clementine.
You sound like you're racially slandering Arvo. Watch yourself. You could easily have mods up your tail.
And Nick almost shot Clementine at the beginning of the game (KEYWORD BEING ALMOST) but nobody hated him. Why? Because there was no buildup to it! We didn't have time to hate Nick for shooting at Clementine, but we had plenty of time to hate Arvo before he shot her.
And speaking of shooting a little sister; Clementine shot Arvo'a sister, Natasha. Although it was because she had reanimated, Arvo WAS NOT AWARE that she had turned and assumed Clementine murdered his sister, who was unarmed and already injured.
Who knows?
Good point. I'll edit my comment. I'm sorry for the racism.
I could get mods up my tail for talking about a video game character...? This is a forum anyway. Ranting is to be expected.
He apologized, tho. And he also thought Clementine was bitten. He didn't want the group to be at risk! After what happened to his mother, that I can understand!
SHE WAS A WALKER.
I can understand that. I really can. I can also understand why he ran away from Kenny on the frozen lake; he was scared. But I will never forgive him for shooting Clem. Unless he apologizes. Which he probably won't.
No, he won't, because he might not see her again (which he might not, unless TTG has another card up their sleeves for Season 3). However, the only reason he ran was because Kenny would've most likely tortured then killed the boy if he caught him after Arvo shot Clementine.
Fingers sort of crossed.
That's exactly what I meant...
Ah, sorry.
Well, I'm worried that if they DO bring Arvo back in S3, then chances are at least 99% of players won't forgive Arvo for what he did, judging by what's been said in this thread.
If he appears in Season 3, and he apologizes, I will consider forgiving him.
However, I will have my guard up. Last time someone apologized to me in TWD and then I forgave them...well, let's just say she was a treacherous scumbag.
Understandable, all things considering.
Another thing we need to consider is that if people were being dicks to Arvo he may come back with a vengeance rather than a heavy heart.
This. I can understand being agree at Arvo, tying him up, even giving him a percussive noogie after the battle. But the extent to which Kenny mistreated him beyond that was too much. To paraphrase myself:
"Mistreating and wishing ill on someone who is weaker than you doesn't make you an antihero--it makes you a bully."
I didn't tolerate that shit from Jane and I did not tolerate that from Kenny.
Wow, that was a while ago. But yeah, just some thoughts for the writing thread that also applied here.
You know what, that's not that far off a possibility from what my expectations concerning his return are...
Ditto, to a point. More like I want to confront him over what happened between us period and then decide how to best resolve the issue. If one of my predictions does end up coming true, though, he might find himself in a cell.
...Are you talking about Jane or Bonnie?