Dear Telltale: Is David supposed to be a villain or not?
I'm only asking because you guys seem a little unsure yourselves. Ripping AJ away from Clem was pretty damn villainous, but you also seemed to be trying to sell David as a morally ambiguous character. The problem is, abducting AJ was an action that alienated the player from the character more or less for good. You compounded this problem even further by not allowing Javi to confront David directly about it. No "David, seriously, what the fuck was that about?" (Unless that's one dialogue option I haven't unearthed yet, although I've tried to be as thorough as possible in my playthroughs.)
Clem's behavior is also...strange. You'd think making off with AJ would induce homicidal impulses in Clem (it certainly did in me), but instead, she's almost sedate around David and Ava. I might have accepted her bizarre disposition if you had offered a clear explanation as to why she was so chilled (relatively speaking) around the people who wronged her so horribly, but you didn't. You could at least have given us the option of refusing Ava's hypocritical offer of supplies during episode 4's flashback. (This was the equivalent of your guts being ripped out, and then having the guilty party offer you a band-aid so they can sleep better at night).
I mean, what exactly is David supposed to be? If he's meant to be a villain along the lines of Carver, he's too hot-headed and charisma-free to be a convincing leader of an entire survivor community. If he's meant to be an ambiguous "grey" figure like Kenny, he doesn't have any of the same depth or nuance. Even Larry, one of the most outright unpleasant characters in the series (aside from David himself), was given a vulnerability in the form of a weak heart. But David is basically a glorified version of Larry minus the vulnerability, except you don't even allow us to cave his skull in with a salt lick. And unlike Larry, we're stuck with this guy throughout the whole season. You attempted to balance out the character's nastiness by giving us glimpses of a loving father whenever he's with Gabe, but even these moments are too fleeting. And again, the incident with AJ was too appalling for us to bounce back from.
By the end of TWD S1, I was bummed out, but I still felt I had undergone a significant journey with Lee and Clementine. I get no such emotion out of Javi and David's relationship. There was no pathos, no sense of tragedy, even at the end. David remained a fundamentally cruel man from start to finish. I felt physically nauseous by the time ANF was over, and probably not in the way you intended.
Comments
I think he is supposed to be complicated
I see him more as a villain than an "anti-hero".
The problem is that your answer is really filled with your personal opinion. Not that it is wrong to have a personal opinion but your question is really general and requires an objective answer from us or the writers. I could answer that I felt sympathy for David, that he was my favorite character, that I loved his relationship with Javier and never saw him as a villain but that would be as subjective as what you said...even though we have a very different opinion you and I.
Objectively speaking, David is not a ''villain'' but he can be an antagonist as well as someone the player dislikes if your moral codes differs from his and if you oppose him in every choices you make. I think that's what Telltale was going for with the David and Javier entire relationship. It is possible for them to work together and get over their mutual issues; not only those that jeopardize their relationship but the flaws they had and still have before and after the aocalypse respectively. Depending on the choices you make David is an antagonist or someone close to you but often he is both because one doesn't exclude the other. David will love Javier either way.
When I said he is not a villain it's not only because he doesn't fit the criterias but also because I despise the concept of villains. I find it ridiculous when I am not reading a tale or a comic about heroes that are created purposely to draw a line between good and evil ( which, in a philosophic perspective, I see as impossible ).
Anyway, you say you see David as a villain because he took A.J from Clementine. I say one might see him as a hero because he made a pragmatic move for the child to be comfortable and eventually saved that child's life.
A character doesn't have to be ''as complex as Kenny'' to be grey, he really just has to be grey. He must have his flaws, which David does, virtues, which David does and a debatable moral that leads to people disagreeing with one another about the right and wrong in what he does. In clear, he must be just like any of us human beings. David is grey, as grey as Kenny is. Which character you prefer though ? It's up to you.
Let's go back to your exemple. It's the source, I believe, of your disdain for David's character. It happens that I believe it to be a smart move that benefitted both Clementine and A.J as it may have saved them both. Intentions are very important in my opinion, and David's intention was exactly that : Preserve the community and protect it from someone who was making reckless and selfish decisions ( Clementine ), ensuring Clementine's safety, and preventing A.J from suffering from starvation and thirst while he is already sick. He did exactly that. If David didn't expulse Clementine then it wouldn't have been fair to the community. It would have felt like it was okay to steal when it's quite a big deal in fact. Eventually, more people may have had the ''brillant'' idea, to steal meds from the community that recieved them. More of them may have done similar selfish moves with guns or who knows what. He couldn't risk that.Plus, If he didn't take A.J from Clementine not only would she have to take care of herself AND A.J which may have got her killed, but she would have to share the food she found with the kid. A.J would have died suffering. I truly believe a villain as you see them in cartoons and comics aren't exactly trying to do what David did if it doesn't benefit them.
David was very human about the whole thing and Clementine ultimately realised she was wrong about him... That, and she hadn't much more occasion to attack him anymore. They had better things to do and an antagonist somehow more dangerous to take care of. Therefore, Clementine probably decided to give him a break.
David is hot-headed, violent and jealous. He is also loyal, responsable and capable. What does that make him ? I'd say human.
He was terrified to lose everything or everyone, he wanted to ensure everyone's safety. He has clear principles and an opinion of what's right and wrong. For example, he didn't want to steal from other communities and was really mad when Javier wasn't with his father as he died. That's not very villainous... That's just a person you might agree or disagree with. It's a person who makes mistakes and wish to grow. You can help him do so or believe it's too late for that, either way the choice is yours. It's not about heroes and villains, it's about family bonds, priorities and self growth.
To answer your question, I doubt David was intended as a villain at all. The fact I like him does not make him a hero and the fact you don't does not make him a villain. He is his own character who's clearly in between. He is capable of ''heroic'' acts but he is also capable to do things that might cause harm to others. You seem to believe what you ( and other players ) feel about a character will be enough to decide what the character ''is''. What people ''feel'' about something and what that something ''is'' aren't related at all.
"we don't know lol" ~ telltale, probably
Yeah, David is a character I was relatively lukewarm about throughout: occasionally hoping he wouldn't just be a one-note abuser in Ties that Bind, thinking he was just okay if at risk of overshadowing/neutralizing any development the Garcia-Prescott group in Above the Law, not thinking much about him in Thicker than Water due to being way more interested/concerned in other characters, and being somewhat happy that he makes himself the biggest death risk after somehow hijacking the plot in From the Gallows.
He was intentionally set up as the Bait and Switch for the Big Bad early in development but personally, I found him to be a glorified deadbeat(ha) by the end of it. He's probably meant to be more of an Antihero, but I don't know what to actually rank him as on the morality(?) list in general, tbh. For what it's worth, I at least felt that his actions regarding Clementine in the flashback was somewhat justified and understandable, though he was definitely being harsh about it. Really, despite his position, he's not much of a leader--just the head of security in Richmond and an influence(positive or otherwise) to a lot of the cast. And I also don't think he was ever really parent material either, going by Mariana's neglect to mention him(I know the reason why, but still) and Gabe's over-idealizing of him; not to say that he wasn't there for them or didn't teach them anything, but I get the feeling that his wife was more hands on than he was.
Ultimately, he feels like yet another Kenny-clone except while he showed some minute promise of being distinct here and there, he ended up showing why Kenny is a much more sympathetic and even tragic character than him.
I never understood why they made him likable in Episode 3 & 4 only to turn him into a psychopath in Episode 5.
Most of the conflicts in A New Frontier basically happens because of character inconsistencies
He's an antagonist, for sure. Villian? I think that's up to the players.
David actually does have a lot of nuance to his character. His jealousy complex towards Javi, his soldier outlook on the apocalypse, his constant internal conflict between whether to be a soldier or a family man.
I do agree with you that David's motives were often unclear and even by his death i felt I was only starting to get to know him.
I don't think it's just "personal opinion" when it comes to season 3 being seen as a huge letdown, Mellorine. Can you REALLY see yourself wanting to be in the company of any of the characters from ANF, as opposed to the characters from S1?
He's a manchild with anger issues that tries or at least wants to do well but when he fails he resorts to the anger side of himself and gets confrontational. If you take into account that he was a soldier he's a hero in that sense. As a father, brother and husband not so much a hero, sometimes acts like a villain but really isn't or wasn't.
You already can dude. You have to be a complete bitch to her. Then you get an option to bitchslap her.
You don't have to. Or smack her hand aside anyway.
What you are saying now is almost completely unrelated to what you previously asked. I stand by what I said, I don't think whether David is a villain or not should be determined by the sympathy the viewer had or hadn't for him, if they liked or didn't like him, what they felt about what he did or how much interest they had for his relationship with Javier. It should, however, be a matter of what he did or didn't do and with which intentions. These things will tell you if David as well as any character of season 1 is or isn't a villain.
What does that have to do with ANF's flaws as a whole ? ANF's quality is supposed to be an argument explaining whether or not David is a villain ? I personnaly don't think so. I feel it has become quite easy for people to use what they feel about ANF in every little question asked about the game even if the question doesn't require any personal input.
I think season 3 being seen as a huge letdown is also a matter of opinion just like liking or disliking David or any character from season 1. Sure, there are objective and rational arguments that could be brought on in favor of one opinion or another ( are the character's consistant ? Does the story make sense ? are there bugs ? etc ) but what you prioritize in a story comes down to you and you alone. Some games, movies, tv shows and books might be quite ''obviously'' terrible because they fucked up in almost every aspect so much everyone pratically agree that they suck. ANF simply isn't one of them.
Some people won't make a fuss about the lack of hubs and think we can very well make a good story without them, some other really like them and think they are essential to create attachment to the characters. Some people get attached to characters quickly some others don't. And even that attachment depends on what character we are talking about : some people are looking for characters they can relate to, empathize with, some people are looking for interesting and realistic characters they can debate on, some people like the people who fit their idea of what ''nice guys'' should be, some others those who fit their idea of what ''bad guys'' should be, some like the badasses, smart or clever ones and some even might like more than one of these type of characters. Some people are able to overcome bugs if the story is good enough, some other will find it too distracting. Some people simply like it better when there are clear heroes and villains in a story some people like more nuanced characters. Some people like actions better than ''calmer'' moments; for some other it's the other way around. I could go on but I think you get my point by now.
Season 3 being a huge letdown truly is a matter of opinion and it just tell things about your priorities.
My set of priorities which is largely related to having nuanced and flawed characters with which I can have very interesting relationships, is such that I do enjoy ANF quite a lot. I feel like telltale focused on Javier's link with his family and you and I can agree that none of the family members are perfect. I also can see myself wanting to be in the company of some characters from ANF over some characters from season 1, but it also can go the other way around depending on who we are talking about. Once again, it is a matter of personal opinion. When we could all pretty much agree that it is safer to be with some characters rather than others, we will not enjoy the company of the same characters.
I would want to be with David rather than season 1 Clementine because though I liked season 1 Clementine I feel like the discussion with David considering his past and his flaws will be much more interesting. The game has proven me he could teach me and would be interested in teaching people helpfull stuff about survival. Also, I want to give him some support. None of them are the safest character to be with anyway. David is way stronger and will do his best to protect you ( if you support him enough and don't fuck him over ) but he is also pretty extreme when he is angry and the decisions he makes out of anger might also cause his or your death.S1 Clementine is way less strong and you'll have to protect her as well as teach her how to survive ( I know she'd die with me honestly ) but she is less likely to burst out of anger and cause your death indirectly if something really tragic happens to someone she cares about.
However, make me choose between Lilly and David and the decision might be much more difficult to make since they are both interesting, both capable, have similar intentions and both ended up having similar flaws.
I am sure you will not want to be around the same people I would. We have different standards and I suppose that's a good thing. It means we are different people. It certainly doesn't make the person I don't choose a villain.. It just makes them the person I don't choose.
I agree with Mellorine. David isn't a villain character , but he can be and at one point is forced to be an antagonist to Javier . David is most like the comic book protagonists - his morality is a blurred line. He doesn't take AJ just to be an asshole. Clementine and AJ were well treated in ANF - given food , shelter , protection , and medical care until the Dr said it wouldn't matter. And he was right . AJ wasn't neglected even after being given a lost cause diagnosis and recovered : that's not the actions of villains. Left with Clementine in the wilderness , he probably wouldn't have made it. Even if he had passed , it would've been more comfortable and humane in their care.
It's regrettable ANF mimicked Shane and Rick's storyline rather than branching out with all the possibilities , because there are many people that did like the Garcia family and under different circumstances they could've made a good core group for another season . I know there are people who liked Kate , Gabe, Javier , and David much more than the S2 cabin group, and if they'd been given as much personal time getting to know them, and work with them as a team they'd have easily rivaled S1's cast.
Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to read your giant blob of text explaining how a man who ripped a child out of his guardian's arms without blinking an eyelid was a richly nuanced character.
Anti-hero is more fitting.
She still takes the supplies though (classic Clementine)
Perfect answer.
David is human.
Honestly, that's the only correct answer to the question of his morality.
Asking a guy a question and then refusing to read the answer?
Typical wannabe "smart guy". Only listening to what they wanna hear, and tuning out everything else.
that post and that avatar = win