Telltale Autumn Sale

So, how are you raising Clementine? [Spoilers]

124»

Comments

  • edited July 2012
    I'd say trying to hold on to the past would be a step back. Surviving is the only way forward. Maybe keep some primitive Honor system, with a bendable sense of morality.

    I'd say for short term, survival should trump all. Eventually society will come back though (if we don't end up extinct, that is :)). It will be easier if SOME sort of moral system is kept in tact. Other wise you just end up like the Bandits, or the St. John's. There is NO WAY the human race is coming back if we do things like kill each other over food (or for food) and leave children behind to die because they are a "liability".
  • edited July 2012
    I'd say for short term, survival should trump all. Eventually society will come back though (if we don't end up extinct, that is :)). It will be easier if SOME sort of moral system is kept in tact. Other wise you just end up like the Bandits, or the St. John's. There is NO WAY the human race is coming back if we do things like kill each other over food (or for food) and leave children behind to die because they are a "liability".

    Exactly.

    What is the one thing that seperates us from the St John's? Or from the bandits?

    I'm not willing to give that up.
  • edited July 2012
    I'd say for short term, survival should trump all. Eventually society will come back though (if we don't end up extinct, that is :)). It will be easier if SOME sort of moral system is kept in tact. Other wise you just end up like the Bandits, or the St. John's. There is NO WAY the human race is coming back if we do things like kill each other over food (or for food) and leave children behind to die because they are a "liability".

    The rules are simple: No Rape, Don't Kill your Own, Be true to your Word, Stand United.
    With that simple code, civilization will be on the track to revival. But if you think society will come back fully within even 13 generations, you're full of it. This plague surely has wiped out, at least 80-90% of the populace. (This is a VERY generous estimate), and will be a perpetual danger. (Since EVERYONE is infected and will turn when they die.).. Humanity will probably need to be in Survival Mode for a good 350-600 years. (Well after that as well, but I mean "Survival first" mode)

    PS: Duck getting the Chomp will save billions of lives by virtue of him not passing on his stupidity.
  • edited July 2012
    The rules are simple: No Rape, Don't Kill your Own, Be true to your Word, Stand United.
    With that simple code, civilization will be on the track to revival. But if you think society will come back fully within even 13 generations, you're full of it. This plague surely has wiped out, at least 80-90% of the populace. (This is a VERY generous estimate), and will be a perpetual danger. (Since EVERYONE is infected and will turn when the die.).. Humanity will probably need to be in Survival Mode for a good 350-600 years.

    PS: Duck getting the Chomp will save billions of lives by virtue of him not passing on his stupidity.

    I don't think society will EVER be what it was, unless whatever causes the Walkers to come back is studied and cured (that may never happen, for all we know). Culture will be forever changed, and that may alter how new society develops in the coming generations. I don't think it will take quite so long (600 years?) for populations to AT LEAST stabilize, although it will take some time before we can begin to take back land and spread. Humans are flexible and human ingenuity is a serious driving force - as long as we hold onto as much knowledge as we can and don't descend into a "dark age", we'll be alright.
  • edited July 2012
    The rules are simple: No Rape, Don't Kill your Own, Be true to your Word, Stand United.
    With that simple code, civilization will be on the track to revival. But if you think society will come back fully within even 13 generations, you're full of it. This plague surely has wiped out, at least 80-90% of the populace. (This is a VERY generous estimate), and will be a perpetual danger. (Since EVERYONE is infected and will turn when they die.).. Humanity will probably need to be in Survival Mode for a good 350-600 years. (Well after that as well, but I mean "Survival first" mode)

    PS: Duck getting the Chomp will save billions of lives by virtue of him not passing on his stupidity.

    i would add no stealing, because i could steal everything you had (just imagine i was as big as larry had a bigger gun than you and had a gang with me) but you couldn't kill me by those rules
  • edited July 2012
    I don't think society will EVER be what it was, unless whatever causes the Walkers to come back is studied and cured (that may never happen, for all we know). Culture will be forever changed, and that may alter how new society develops in the coming generations. I don't think it will take quite so long (600 years?) for populations to AT LEAST stabilize, although it will take some time before we can begin to take back land and spread. Humans are flexible and human ingenuity is a serious driving force - as long as we hold onto as much knowledge as we can and don't descend into a "dark age", we'll be alright.

    Optimism, but even if populations are Stable it doesn't really change the situation they're in. I'd say 600 years, most people don't understand the ungodly complications of this world population wise. Sure, they get the zombie aspect... But how about the Genetic, and Child Birth aspect? In ancient times, the average man died in his 30s, many children didn't make it to their teens and so many women died in child birth that some societies (such as the aztecs), honored the fallen women as if they were warriors.

    These people knew traditions in birthing that have been lost in modern times, how many people know how to deliver children in the kinds of conditions the survivors are living in? My own birth was traumatic, and even with advanced medicine they almost lost my mother and me. Take a moment to fathom the dwindling number of viable birthing women, coupled with the rising numbers of Child Bearing deaths and you begin to see the ultimate dilemma in this new world.
    The loss of the mother, or the child, will be terrifyingly high, but say the child makes it... A baby is a living, breathing, dinner bell to the Undead. So, in order to even attempt it you need to be in a REALLY safe place. A luxury the overwhelming majority of survivors WON'T have. Say they make it a few years, and no illnesses kill them off... Try taking something away from a 2 year old, see what happens. They scream and cry.

    Now, couple this with the high amount of adult deaths due to Starvation, Disease, Tribal Warfare (Survivors vs bandits, for example), and Zombies. This isn't even accounting for natural disasters, including drought...

    I'd say 350-600 years is me being optimistic.

    PS: To elaborate on Genetics, due to our cushy modern lifestyle, many genetic traits have been allowed to form that would put people at a massive disadvantage in survival situations. Many mental illnesses (Some that require prescription for people to just remain stable), various Allergies, STD's like AIDs or HIV, even Double Digit IQ level stupidity. *Looking at Duck for the last one*

    What if a child is left motherless as well. Most people wouldn't know that two women having sex while one is lactating could make the other lactate as well. (A woman told me about this and theorized that might be why more women are Bisexual rather than Lesbian, which is opposite of male statistics, as perhaps it might have been a viable survival tactic. I still haven't met a woman who tested this out on their own, but I've also heard it from other sources.) That baby will be left with no momma to feed it, and something tells me formula milk won't be an option.
  • edited July 2012
    i would add no stealing, because i could steal everything you had (just imagine i was as big as larry had a bigger gun than you and had a gang with me) but you couldn't kill me by those rules

    I'd say "No stealing from your own". As episode 2 shows, Lee's group probably wouldn't have made it w/o
    stealing from the car
    .
  • edited July 2012
    I'd say "No stealing from your own". As episode 2 shows, Lee's group probably wouldn't have made it w/o
    stealing from the car
    .

    i would say defiantly no stealing from your own but scavenging is fine, i dont think being a bandit and forcibly stealing off of other groups would be acceptable either
  • edited July 2012
    i would say defiantly no stealing from your own but scavenging is fine, i dont think being a bandit and forcibly stealing off of other groups would be acceptable either

    I'm sure you'd say that when you were starving as well. :rolleyes:

    PS: Heading to bed.
  • edited July 2012
    I'm sure you'd say that when you were starving as well. :rolleyes:

    well that would be what a principle is, if another group had food and we were starving i would offer our services for work guard duty anything rather than steal, but if another group had the food to spare and didnt help us no matter what, i would conclude that they arent good people and dont deserve the be treated as such
  • edited July 2012
    I enjoy reading this kind of speculation, and here's my two cents...

    I'm making several assumptions:
    Humanity is not completely wiped out. There is a Dark Age; medicine becomes practically nonexistent and things go almost medieval, but clothing is maintained and passed down through family, with clothing being equal to status as time goes on. The memories of that better time remain, with an almost mythic status after several generations. A few "relics" are kept and possibly revered. People do not discover the cause of zombification. Religion as we know it is gone aside from sayings such as "Oh God" or "Jesus Christ". Humankind develops good methods of avoiding walkers/fortifying "Golden Age" buildings/vehicles as to create safe havens. Methods of removing or eliminating the dead are developed. Sciences and theories are lost. Ammunition and weaponry from "our" time become rarer and rarer, with status similar to clothes. There are several isolated pockets of surviving people.

    The aforementioned pockets develop into villages, with the more savage ones enjoying more food and supplies than the more civilized, less violent ones, who are eventually absorbed. There is dissent, but it either changes the power balance or eventually disappears. Over time, warlords appear, make alliances, kill other warlords. Any village they take is scrapped and expands their own. Over time, these grow and warlords become more cultured and become monarchs, wearing some of the last remaining "modern" clothing and wielding guns as symbols of their power. There is an aristocratical period, with little revolutions occurring, causing republics and democracies to appear. People slowly become more cultured, with physics and mathematical sciences being recreated. Pockets of civilization now interact, with their shanty cities trading and warring for many more hundred years. Technologies are created, some that we wouldn't of even devised, and others such as the steam engine appearing. Over time, transportation methods such as the car return. Trains and such are discarded as being lifethreatening due to walkers, although some are created regardless. Other cities are slowly built with the advent of modern firearms. There are several billion deceased walkers, due mostly to rotting to the point of immobility. Children play games around the bones. You see where this is going by now...

    That time period could consist of anywhere between 1500 (optimistic) to 3000 (my guess) years after walkers outnumber humans (in canon aren't we out numbered 5000 to 1?) .
  • edited July 2012
    I'd say for short term, survival should trump all. Eventually society will come back though (if we don't end up extinct, that is :)). It will be easier if SOME sort of moral system is kept in tact. Other wise you just end up like the Bandits, or the St. John's. There is NO WAY the human race is coming back if we do things like kill each other over food (or for food) and leave children behind to die because they are a "liability".

    It would have to depend on the kid. More than one civilization in history had standards that their young had to meet or die, full stop. The Spartans examined newborns for defects to determine fitness (or lack thereof). The Mongols required their younger members to hit a narrow piece of wood with an arrow while on horseback at a full gallop (and you can bet the Mongol parents did whatever they could to ensure their kid passed that test), etc.

    As brutal as it is, these methods were used to ensure that the kids wouldn't be a burden to soceity as they grew up, and it's a valid concern when soceity can longer bear that kind of burden. The resources simply aren't there to induldge the idea that every child is a precious unique snowflake, since you can't even rely on millenia-old technologies and techniques like agriculture to provide food anymore.

    There'd need to be some minimal standard, such as an apparent willingness/ability to contribute to the group, otherwise humanity's looking at weight it simply can't pull anymore. For example, it'd no longer be feasible to try and give a kid with autism and shrieking fits a chance since that kid's just going to be a dinner bell for the living-impaired. In the case of other disabilities, you can't even properly treat or care for them anymore.
  • edited July 2012
    A Mix between Pragmatic and moral. I help her whenever I can but she saw me do something in Episode two to one of the brothers so I told I did it to protect us. Tough choices.
  • edited July 2012
    I enjoy reading this kind of speculation, and here's my two cents...

    I'm making several assumptions:
    Humanity is not completely wiped out. There is a Dark Age; medicine becomes practically nonexistent and things go almost medieval, but clothing is maintained and passed down through family, with clothing being equal to status as time goes on. The memories of that better time remain, with an almost mythic status after several generations. A few "relics" are kept and possibly revered. People do not discover the cause of zombification. Religion as we know it is gone aside from sayings such as "Oh God" or "Jesus Christ". Humankind develops good methods of avoiding walkers/fortifying "Golden Age" buildings/vehicles as to create safe havens. Methods of removing or eliminating the dead are developed. Sciences and theories are lost. Ammunition and weaponry from "our" time become rarer and rarer, with status similar to clothes. There are several isolated pockets of surviving people.

    The aforementioned pockets develop into villages, with the more savage ones enjoying more food and supplies than the more civilized, less violent ones, who are eventually absorbed. There is dissent, but it either changes the power balance or eventually disappears. Over time, warlords appear, make alliances, kill other warlords. Any village they take is scrapped and expands their own. Over time, these grow and warlords become more cultured and become monarchs, wearing some of the last remaining "modern" clothing and wielding guns as symbols of their power. There is an aristocratical period, with little revolutions occurring, causing republics and democracies to appear. People slowly become more cultured, with physics and mathematical sciences being recreated. Pockets of civilization now interact, with their shanty cities trading and warring for many more hundred years. Technologies are created, some that we wouldn't of even devised, and others such as the steam engine appearing. Over time, transportation methods such as the car return. Trains and such are discarded as being lifethreatening due to walkers, although some are created regardless. Other cities are slowly built with the advent of modern firearms. There are several billion deceased walkers, due mostly to rotting to the point of immobility. Children play games around the bones. You see where this is going by now...

    That time period could consist of anywhere between 1500 (optimistic) to 3000 (my guess) years after walkers outnumber humans (in canon aren't we out numbered 5000 to 1?) .

    I don't see it taking that long, provided more fit people are born than turn, because at that point Walkers are already losing the numbers game (albeit slowly) even if you don't bother to kill any. It also seems unlikely that knowledge of sciences, etc. would be lost, atleast insofar as things like chemistry, basic physics, metallurgy, etc. go, since they'd still have practical applications for things like weapons and ammunition manufacture, shelter construction, etc. That knowledge will still be readily accessible since we record information like that in books. It's actually quite difficult to "lose" that sort of information once it's been acquired and recorded, even if you wanted to.

    I see it as being even less likely that Modern firearms/ammunition would become all that rare. The current U.S. alone produces billions (yes, with a B) of rounds of ammunition per year and it's pretty clear that it wasn't all expended. Likewise, standard-issue assault rifles like the M16 number in the millions, that leaves multiple rifles per survivor for the forseeable future. The facilties to produce those weapons also didn't go anywhere, so even if they were non-functional, between that and having access to working examples of the technology (i.e. the weapons themselves) that gives you more than a good enough base to figure out how to manufacture your own weapons and ammunition to more or less the same standard - you just wouldn't be able to do it on an industrial scale.
  • edited July 2012
    Rommel49 wrote: »
    I don't see it taking that long, provided more fit people are born than turn, because at that point Walkers are already losing the numbers game (albeit slowly) even if you don't bother to kill any. It also seems unlikely that knowledge of sciences, etc. would be lost, atleast insofar as things like chemistry, basic physics, metallurgy, etc. go, since they'd still have practical applications for things like weapons and ammunition manufacture, shelter construction, etc. That knowledge will still be readily accessible since we record information like that in books. It's actually quite difficult to "lose" that sort of information once it's been acquired and recorded, even if you wanted to.

    I see it as being even less likely that Modern firearms/ammunition would become all that rare. The current U.S. alone produces billions (yes, with a B) of rounds of ammunition per year and it's pretty clear that it wasn't all expended. Likewise, standard-issue assault rifles like the M16 number in the millions, that leaves multiple rifles per survivor for the forseeable future. The facilties to produce those weapons also didn't go anywhere, so even if they were non-functional, between that and having access to working examples of the technology (i.e. the weapons themselves) that gives you more than a good enough base to figure out how to manufacture your own weapons and ammunition to more or less the same standard - you just wouldn't be able to do it on an industrial scale.

    Unfortunately, neither of those were points I was talking about in my post... Also, just a honest question: How high of a priority is teaching kids to read during a survival situation? The problem is FAR more complicated than as long as "more fit people are born", the problem is how many newborns will make it to adult hood. You can have broad shoulders, be ambidextrous, and have an athletic build, but it's not gonna matter much if you cry as a 2 year old, because someone takes your toy away, and a near by herd (think tv series season 2 finale) comes to see when dinner is ready.
    Also, how many women will honestly take on the task? What if the baby dies, but is still in the womb? What if it eats its way out?
    I'm sorry, but using tech skills (that many people might not know in this situation, or even care to go looking for) and ammunition are the LEAST of a Zombie Survivors problems...

    Who goes to raid a Library during the Apocalypse anyways? You have to get resources like food, and ammo, but who in their right mind is willing to die for some books?
  • edited July 2012
    Realistically, the points I brought up are essentially useless, due to the assumptions I made beforehand. As an Australian, I don't have ready access to guns, and you can't assume the only survivors are in America (let's face it, you've got way less likehood of survival, what with more guns - some people might shoot others on sight, where as you'd generally have to get close and personal here) ...

    In all likelihood, if a Romero Zombie Apocalyspe happened in our universe, we'd have the knowledge to survive (c'mon, you could beat them by jogging, unless there was a ton on em!) and knowledge of their weaknesses. We'd still be in a lot of danger, but not as much as the TWD world.
  • edited July 2012
    Unfortunately, neither of those were points I was talking about in my post... Also, just a honest question: How high of a priority is teaching kids to read during a survival situation? The problem is FAR more complicated than as long as "more fit people are born", the problem is how many newborns will make it to adult hood. You can have broad shoulders, be ambidextrous, and have an athletic build, but it's not gonna matter much if you cry as a 2 year old, because someone takes your toy away, and a near by herd (think tv series season 2 finale) comes to see when dinner is ready.
    Also, how many women will honestly take on the task? What if the baby dies, but is still in the womb? What if it eats its way out?
    I'm sorry, but using tech skills (that many people might not know in this situation, or even care to go looking for) and ammunition are the LEAST of a Zombie Survivors problems...

    Who goes to raid a Library during the Apocalypse anyways? You have to get resources like food, and ammo, but who in their right mind is willing to die for some books?

    I wasn't responding to your post, I was responding to his :p Anywho... long wall incoming.

    Skills like reading would likely still be taught (or atleast should), simply because it has practical uses for things like clarity of communication, alerting people to danger (e.g. those common "don't open, dead inside" signs), etc. Throughout thousands of years of history, the civilizations that survived (or that we atleast remember) did so because they were able to pass on information in the form of the written word.

    The world's already geared towards a mostly literate populous which further incentivizes it, even if that world's fallen apart. Telling someone "I'm heading to that big gray building over... there", is a lot less useful than telling them "I'm heading to the building on the corner of Main Street and 1st Avenue" as long as the street signs are still standing. Teaching a kid how to read isn't that big an expenditure in calories since all you need to do is have them sit there, and the payoff's a lot bigger since you don't need to worry (as much) about information being distorted (nevermind losing information outright) by trying to pass it on orally.

    If Lilly croaked before she could teach the survivors anything, where could they get information on their weapons, how to operate and maintain them, or even what type of ammunition their weapons needed? Likewise for basic survival skills. Short of finding someone else that was both knowledgeable and generous enough to instruct them, the only option would be reading manuals. Most modern militaries (atleast those of note) require literacy from their soldiers for a reason. It's used as part of instruction, and following complicated plans, tactics, reading manuals, etc. all require it. Hell, most people wouldn't even know how to properly identify what ammunition their weapons needed just by eyeballing it, or know how to properly prepare an MRE (or even know what it was) without being able to read the instructions. As the saying goes, knowledge is power, and all that.

    I'm not too concerned about undead babies, the comics make it pretty clear that toothless zombies are harmless (e.g. Penny, and she wasn't an infant), and babies are pretty fragile anyway given that the skulls are soft, the possibility of miscarriage, etc. Newborns can't even sit up or crawl. Likewise, this is why you'd want to retain information, basic medical knowledge tends to cut down on the rates of stillbirth, etc. :p And a working knowledge of engineering allows you to build and maintain fortifications to mitigate the threat of groups of walkers.

    Ammunition and its manufacture is going to be one of the biggest concerns, not the least, even short term. It's your primary means of both gathering food (hunting) and self-defense. The instant you decide it's not worth attempting to learn how to manufacture your own to secure a steady supply is the instant you're looking at being conquered by another group that thought otherwise. Scavenging will only get you so far, because more than just ammunition, you need ammunition that's compatible with the weapons you possess, and without the ability to manufacture it, every expended round is one you eventually won't be able to replace.

    In general, the "low-lying fruit" with regards to what you can scavenge is probably going to be gone within the first year (maybe less), due to the likelihood that you aren't the only people ganking it. After that, you have to get more creative, take bigger risks, etc. to get the same resources. The knowledge and ability to manufacture things like ammunition yourself means not having to risk your ass outside camp trying to look for it.
  • edited July 2012
    Rommel49 wrote: »
    I wasn't responding to your post, I was responding to his :p Anywho... long wall incoming.

    Skills like reading would likely still be taught (or atleast should), simply because it has practical uses for things like clarity of communication, alerting people to danger (e.g. those common "don't open, dead inside" signs), etc. Throughout thousands of years of history, the civilizations that survived (or that we atleast remember) did so because they were able to pass on information in the form of the written word.

    The world's already geared towards a mostly literate populous which further incentivizes it, even if that world's fallen apart. Telling someone "I'm heading to that big gray building over... there", is a lot less useful than telling them "I'm heading to the building on the corner of Main Street and 1st Avenue" as long as the street signs are still standing. Teaching a kid how to read isn't that big an expenditure in calories since all you need to do is have them sit there, and the payoff's a lot bigger since you don't need to worry (as much) about information being distorted (nevermind losing information outright) by trying to pass it on orally.

    If Lilly croaked before she could teach the survivors anything, where could they get information on their weapons, how to operate and maintain them, or even what type of ammunition their weapons needed? Likewise for basic survival skills. Short of finding someone else that was both knowledgeable and generous enough to instruct them, the only option would be reading manuals. Most modern militaries (atleast those of note) require literacy from their soldiers for a reason. It's used as part of instruction, and following complicated plans, tactics, reading manuals, etc. all require it. Hell, most people wouldn't even know how to properly identify what ammunition their weapons needed just by eyeballing it, or know how to properly prepare an MRE (or even know what it was) without being able to read the instructions. As the saying goes, knowledge is power, and all that.

    I'm not too concerned about undead babies, the comics make it pretty clear that toothless zombies are harmless (e.g. Penny, and she wasn't an infant), and babies are pretty fragile anyway given that the skulls are soft, the possibility of miscarriage, etc. Newborns can't even sit up or crawl. Likewise, this is why you'd want to retain information, basic medical knowledge tends to cut down on the rates of stillbirth, etc. :p And a working knowledge of engineering allows you to build and maintain fortifications to mitigate the threat of groups of walkers.

    Ammunition and its manufacture is going to be one of the biggest concerns, not the least, even short term. It's your primary means of both gathering food (hunting) and self-defense. The instant you decide it's not worth attempting to learn how to manufacture your own to secure a steady supply is the instant you're looking at being conquered by another group that thought otherwise. Scavenging will only get you so far, because more than just ammunition, you need ammunition that's compatible with the weapons you possess, and without the ability to manufacture it, every expended round is one you eventually won't be able to replace.

    In general, the "low-lying fruit" with regards to what you can scavenge is probably going to be gone within the first year (maybe less), due to the likelihood that you aren't the only people ganking it. After that, you have to get more creative, take bigger risks, etc. to get the same resources. The knowledge and ability to manufacture things like ammunition yourself means not having to risk your ass outside camp trying to look for it.

    Keep in mind we're talking about the general populace here, not people who study survivalism or have thought long enough to have a base plan on things.
    Most people, unfortunately, aren't so insightful.
  • edited July 2012
    If TWDG was Bioshock Two

    Diana: Look at her, Lee. Ten years, and still she dreams of you. Do you know
    why Clementine brought you here? She wanted a Father. So she found a way to
    restore you in body and mind. And she has been watching you ever since, exalting your every act as gospel. The girl lying on that bed is no longer my child, nor my life's work.
    She is a monster, shaped by you alone. Just as she has always wanted. But there
    is one detail of your mutual bond she failed to account for. Your body was
    designed to lapse into a coma when her heart ceases to beat. Clementine... forgive
    me.
  • edited July 2012
    The more I think about this game, the more I think that every choice is irrelevant to everything but her and teaching her the lessons she needs to survive.
    If you look at the end polls, they all have individual themes of mercy, pragmatism etc. If you consider an end game where who Clem is is dependant on what you've taught her, this is the true result of everything you've done.
  • edited July 2012
    Ninnuendo wrote: »
    The more I think about this game, the more I think that every choice is irrelevant to everything but her and teaching her the lessons she needs to survive.
    If you look at the end polls, they all have individual themes of mercy, pragmatism etc. If you consider an end game where who Clem is is dependant on what you've taught her, this is the true result of everything you've done.

    So your saying this is determining how effective the Queen's new empire is.
  • edited July 2012
    Mackeh wrote: »

    bit of self promotion eh ? ;)

    good vid
  • edited July 2012
    In episode four when Clem gets kidnapped we'll be given a glimpse into her mindset and what she's learned from Lee. Before Lee goes Bryan Mills on the kidnappers.
  • edited July 2012
    im raseing her mixed all about surving the walkers and im also a bit of a softy towards clemintine
  • edited July 2012
    I couldn't bullshit her about my past, about the teacher's chances, or most other things happening right in front of her. Even if I tried, she's too smart for that. The one thing I can't be truthful about is her parents, and by the start of ep 2 she's figuring it out anyway. This is one of the ways Clem tugs at the heartstrings: She's actively trying to preserve her own innocence, with or without my help, somehow instinctively knowing that to become jaded is a kind of death in itself. But I don't worry about Clem living in a bubble. She was a survivor before we even met.
  • edited July 2012
    I couldn't bullshit her about my past, about the teacher's chances, or most other things happening right in front of her. Even if I tried, she's too smart for that. The one thing I can't be truthful about is her parents, and by the start of ep 2 she's figuring it out anyway. This is one of the ways Clem tugs at the heartstrings: She's actively trying to preserve her own innocence, with or without my help, somehow instinctively knowing that to become jaded is a kind of death in itself. But I don't worry about Clem living in a bubble. She was a survivor before we even met.

    Completely agree, I’m doing the same with my Clem she’s a survivor in her own right and if Duck continues to live, all be it in blissful ignorance than so should Clem as long as my Lee can protect her from the dangerous ones.

    Unfortunately the meat locker incident may have destroyed all that hard work, Clems scream and sobs gets me every time
  • edited July 2012
    Clementine is being told the truth about what's going on, about Lee's suppositions concerning her parents, about Lee's past and family. However, he's very protective of her and he didn't kill the brothers or steal from the car. It was tough of him to let her through the vent and he hurried to save her from eating Mark meat. I'll admit, the car was a tough choice, but Lee wants her to remain as humane as possible. Personally, I think it's going to get tougher and he's gonna snap in later episodes. If it gets really cold and freezing and stuff and she needs that sweater, I guess Duck might suspiciously lose his.... She knows what's right in a pre-apocalypse world and hasn't adapted yet to the new one; Lee is fighting to make sure she stays so.

    On another note, when she lost the hat and Lee didn't find it before going to the dairy farm ... I thought, "Thank goodness! Now she won't she drop it while running, hold people up, and get somebody killed." Then I remembered that it came from her dad, and I felt bad and that's when I decided that I'd make all the preservationist choices possible; needless to say, I was glad when she got it back.
  • edited July 2012
    Moral Clem all the way across the sky.

    Yeah, tough decisions have to be made...but we shouldn't become monsters along the way. Otherwise we'd just be walkers with higher thinking capacity. Take handling the brothers for instance, they were a threat...key word being "were". Danny was subdued and Andy was a broken man wanting to die (ergo he wasn't a threat to anyone but himself at that point), killing them would be a pointless waste of energy and humanity.
  • edited August 2012
    Pragmatic Clem. Best route to ensure her survival imo. Applies to anyone really.
    It's all about making Spock-like choice of practicality.
    Damn the the consequences!
  • edited August 2012
    Pragmatic/Tough Clem for sure. I feel like if I taught Clem morals she would not do what was needed in a given situation to survive. A screwed world requires tough decisions and whatever to do to survive. If you need to take from an abandoned car to survive, it must be done for survival. Teaching Clem morals just softens her up and gives her less chance for survival. It seems like Clem gives every stranger a chance now. She opens up to Christa quickly, and that stranger on that walkie? How the hell can she trust him? Seriously, sometimes morals isn't the best way to go in this type of world.

    I'm not telling you all that are teaching Clem morals that it's not a good idea, I'm just saying that teaching Clem morals should not overshadow teaching her to survive. Survival comes first. I've been teaching my Clem morals, which is the only thing separating us from the bandits and the St. Johns. But teaching her whatever is neccessary to survive.

    Of course, I have to start all over again since all my saves got corrupted... so...
  • edited September 2012
    i'm definitely raising a moral clem. as the only parent-like figure she has at this point, i think it's important to teach her that although there are bad things happening in the world, we shouldn't lose our humanity. that's why i didn't kill the brothers and while i took the supplies from the car, i explained to clem why we were doing it and told her to hold on to the hoodie in case we run into the owners. later, in episode 3, i took chuck's advice & taught clem how to defend herself, as well as cut her hair. he made some valid points, and while i'm still going for a moral clem, i also want a clem that knows how to survive.

    i freaking love this game, btw. it's my favorite right now & i can't wait for episode 4! :D
  • edited September 2012
    I have to admit, I've been teaching her morals.

    But only because I'm having Lee do the pragmatic stuff.
  • edited September 2012
    DreadMagus wrote: »
    I have to admit, I've been teaching her morals.

    But only because I'm having Lee do the pragmatic stuff.

    i think there is a lot of lead by example, not just what you say to her, but i defiantly think teaching morals is important, because immoral people will be hated and eventually killed by good people that they have treated badly
  • edited September 2012
    Well, that's just it, I don't want Clem to become like that.... one Carl Grimes is enough for any apocalypse.

    So while I do things... ahem... ruthlessly and pragmatically... I keep stressing to her the need to stay a good person. Do it because you "have" to... and all.
  • edited September 2012
    I've taught a mix between pragmatic and moral. And I always tell her the truth.

    I didn't kill the brothers, but stole from the car. I tried to teach her to put survival first but have mercy close by.
  • edited September 2012
    Completely agree, I’m doing the same with my Clem she’s a survivor in her own right and if Duck continues to live, all be it in blissful ignorance than so should Clem as long as my Lee can protect her from the dangerous ones.

    Unfortunately the meat locker incident may have destroyed all that hard work, Clems scream and sobs gets me every time

    After episode 3 the bubble of innocense has burst so I guess its survival training time 06:00hrs sharp
  • edited October 2012
    Pragmatic, moral and honest.

    Not once have I picked an option to lie, to her or anyone else. After episode 3 I don't need to lie about my previous murder either. Sometimes I don't take the most direct approch, like when she asked if the brothers got killed by the walkers and I replied that I don't know. Which I don't. I also don't mix words about her parents or pretend that the world is likely to go back to normal someday. Although I am willing to help her look for them since we have arrived in Savanah anyway.

    I keep unnecessary violence to the minimum. I didn't do that last hammer hit on zombie babysitter. I didn't punch the farmer any more then I needed to subdue him. I let Kenny beat me up when I failed to talk him down. I didn't kill the brothers either, although if they hadn't been attacked by zombies at the end, I would have restarted to the previous save and done it then because I wasn't about to let them go free after what they did. I only left them alive because I figured they would be dealt with later on. Which they were. Having karma do it was kinda lame though.

    I tried to be moral. I defended Duck when they thought he had been bitten. I offered as much sympathy as I could when Duck WAS bitten. I tried staying neutral in the arguments. Didn't eat any food myself and made sure the kids ate (which almost everyone else did as well but still). I picked manure as instead of a certain curse word. I killed Duck myself.

    However I also needed her to be pragmatic. I stole the food from the car. I didn't shoot the girl that was being eaten by zombies. I helped bash Larry's head in, rather then risk him turning (I really don't think most of you Larry savers really realize what a dangerous position we were in at the time). I tried not saying anything about eating the MarkMeat. I thought I could get an advantage by not letting them know I knew right away. Didn't work though so I reset and had him warn Clem in time. Also, teaching her how to shoot a gun? That should have been done a long time ago.
  • edited October 2012
    Clem will never live in a normal world, so I treated her with no lieing, taking the supplies from the car (an 8 year old's choice against a 37 year old one, come on), basiclly not hidding anything from her, she will have to get over with, this world isn't normal anymore.
  • edited October 2012
    I'm doing 'Moral Clem; a screwed world doesn't require ruthlessness'. But I've also been making choices to show that it's not required, but sometimes necessary. Hopefully she isn't going to be naive, and trust everyone just because they're a survivor too.
This discussion has been closed.