Telltale Autumn Sale

Crawford Vs Ben (or Survival Vs Humanity)

edited November 2012 in The Walking Dead
I don't want to write too much in this topic for fear of influencing the poll but I'm interested looking at the Ben question through the prism of Crawford Survivalist Philosophy.

Ben
He's a young kid, he's an idiot, he's put you in danger multiple times but he's not bad, he's well meaning, he has the potential to be useful and will keep trying to be.
Now Ben has split this forum into 2 camps.

Those who would drop him because he's a threat or because he already screwed up & those who would save him out of compassion or his potential use. This particular issue is very relevant to the supporters and opponents of the way Crawford is run.

What I want to know is this

Did you support or agree with Crawfords policy of removing potential threats?
&
Did you drop Ben?

I'd really like forum answers to this and explanations, don't just vote and leave.

Poll is coming in a moment
«1

Comments

  • edited October 2012
    I don't really agree with Crawford's policy. I did drop Ben from the clock tower. However, I don't think you should get rid of everyone who is a drain. It's one thing to remove all drains on the resources of the group for the betterment of the group. It's another to remove the guy that is actively causing peoples' deaths. It's not that Ben is a drain, but he is just too large of a liability to justify saving.
  • edited October 2012
    Saved ben. Really i did want to drop him but i hadnt killed anyone in my playthrough and it just seemed not right to kill him because of a few slip ups. Crawford was wrong from the start and deserved the punishment it got when the walkers won.
  • edited October 2012
    I pulled him up. I did because he's a good person and not an a-hole like a certain someone. He might be stupid but I can't just kill him like that. I might have also done it because Kenny didn't want me to :)
  • edited October 2012
    oh,I was going to just vote and leave x) anyway, I'm not going to start deciding who's useful or not.

    I would like to know how people think that getting rid of Ben because they think he's a liability and couldn't pull his weight , is completely different from Crawford getting rid of people because they were a liability, or couldn't pull their own weight.
  • edited October 2012
    I didn't like Crawford. However, the idea that people could make the choice to join a community and live by strict rules to increase the odds of survival was ok. I don't think they deserved to die as long as they were keeping to themselves and not hurting people.

    Unfortunately they were hurting people. They took all the good supplies, which made it harder for other people to live. They had rampant corruption, which hurt their own people. Their rules made their people miserable. They turned away children, elderly, and the sick, which is pretty much the same as a death sentence for those people.

    So, the Crawford way didn't work, just like the St Johns didn't.
  • edited October 2012
    Ben
    I've pretty much repeated this elsewhere but I saved Ben without even needing to think about it. All the mistakes he has made are done and killing him won't take that back.
    The only pertinent question is whether he will continue to be a threat and does that justify letting him die. Ultimately I have to say no, you cant kill someone because of the mistakes they might make, this isn't Minority Report. He's well meaning and has the potential for both good and bad, the same as everyone else.

    Crawford
    Now this is a bit more difficult as a question.
    Do I support Crawford as it was run? No, it was too severe and caused rebellion and it's own destruction.
    Do I support Crawford as an idea? Hmm. There's something to be said for social evolution but it's a dangerous slope.
    Ultimately no I can't support Crawford. I can agree with the separation and control of groups, according to status, but when it comes to letting people die depending on their usefulness, no.
  • edited October 2012
    oddly i never thought of crawfords rules at all after the initial wtf was this guy on,

    as for ben i accidently dropped him, cos i honestly mis read let him go as let him up, so my thoughts where kenny was already against lee from the whole duck scenario and he never let me forget it.

    so even after talking him down on the train, still no love there.

    so cos i've tried to save the right people in my first run,

    true story.

    will be 'saving him for clem soon'
  • edited October 2012
    Poll isn't quite going the way I expected, this could be interesting :)
  • edited October 2012
    i saved ben because making sure innocent people die is basically the opposite of what i want.

    and the problem with crawford is that they missed the main point of why we are social animals that live and work together, and the point of that is to make a safe environment for our children and family to live in, what's the point of making a society that by it's own rules will have to kill itself in a few years, it's clearly the plan of an insane person that has no long term worth as a way to run a society.
  • edited October 2012
    Crawford supported social Darwinism. Of course I don't agree with it, I don't feel like I need to explain myself further.

    I've said time and again that I think Ben will redeem himself... but, if I'm going to be honest, a lot of my choices that I make in-game are more for storytelling reasons than choices I will actually make. I would have saved Ben if it was me, because he's a good kid and I can relate to feeling like a fuck-up sometimes, but the main factor for me deciding to save Ben is that it will (hopefully) lead to some interesting tensions in the next episode.
  • edited October 2012
    I reject Crawford's philosophy. The second we start adopting the reasoning that the weak must be exiled or killed is the moment that we are no different than the walkers. What's the point of survival if there are no children, no compassion, no care? The goal of humans is literally to pass on our genetics to the next generation. To reproduce. But that's only part of it.

    If we are sacrificing the weak, the young and the ill to die, then what has humanity become? What has thousands of years of human evolution become if we revert back to mindless apes? It's the duty of the strong to PROTECT the weak. Even if they aren't able to fight or defend the walls against walkers, they can still provide aid and be useful members of the community. They still have immense potential.

    The fact that Crawford turned those people away to the walkers is the entire reason why they failed. That's why the community only lasted a mere three months in the apocalypse. They gave up their humanity in exchange for safety, but in the end the trade caused their collapse.

    That's why I've been a supporter of Ben this entire time. If you read back to my posts after Episode 3, I was always supporting him while about 80% of these forums wished death upon him. He may be an idiot, and he may not be survival oriented, but he has heart. The only reason he went along with the bandits was to help a friend, and then later to try and protect the group. He hasn't done anything malicious, and I see that he has the potential within him to become something more than a stupid kid. I'd save him again in Episode 5 if given the opportunity.

    It's the same with Kenny. No matter how many times he just stands there while I'm attacked or subtly or flat out points out that I didn't support him during the Larry decision, I will ALWAYS save him. He's a member of MY group. He's a part of MY humanity, even if it's about to die in a maximum of 24 hours.
  • edited October 2012
    Giving Ben the boot doesn't equal supporting Crawford. Crawford had ridiculous standards as seen when they threw out Vernon's group even though their cancer was in remission. Ben wasn't only a deadweight, not only a drain on resources, he was a liability that almost got Lee's group destroyed in Crawford and is responsible for the deaths of 4 group members plus Brie and I had no intention of giving him another chance to destroy the group in the next episode. Sure, outside of his snarky attitude in the first half of Ep. 4 he's a well-mannered kid and not malicious, but that doesn't mitigate the results of his stupidity, and someone who consistently screws-up on the grand scale that Ben does is too dangerous to keep around.
  • edited October 2012
    For some reason, I just wanted to vote support crawford/drop Ben after I voted cuz no one voted for it yet :D
  • edited October 2012
    Dropping Ben would go with any reasonable person's policy.
  • edited October 2012
    I wanted to drop Ben SO BADDDDD! But I noticed that most ppls playthroughs let him die and I wanted to see what happened if I saved him lol. I let him stay and watch the boat while me, Kenny, Christa, and Omid went to find Clementine so hopefully he don't let anything happen to the boat. I don't support Crawford what-so-ever so my vote was "Reject Crawford/Save Ben" :)
  • edited October 2012
    He wanted to go. I figured this was the best ending I could send him out on. At least he had realised it was time to go
  • edited November 2012
    I pulled Ben up. It seems like I agree with Vernon and Molly's reasons for disliking Crawford. The place's rules were insane.
  • edited November 2012
    I disagree with Crawford. From an extreme survivalist's point of view maybe they could be right, but I agree with the other people, their rules were absolutely unreasonable.

    I saved Ben. I don't expect him to do anything heroic or whatever, I just think it's not right to let him die like that when you can save him. Though I understand the people who let him die because they thought there was no time, or because they thought he was redeeming himself that way... I just don't think it's right :p

    And well, I actually like Ben. By the end of episode 4, Kenny said he wasn't helping and we don't really see eye to eye on a lot of things, and I like Christa and Omid but I feel they're a bit distrustful towards the group, kinda feels like they're only coming with Lee because he's bit. But then there was Ben... I let him decide for himself if he wanted to come along and he said I had been good to him so he'd help me find Clem. I see him as Lee's friend by that point. Probably the only one Ben has (besides Clem), poor guy :p
  • edited November 2012
    If I comment I don't want anyone quoting my reply with 'you sick murderer!'

    I don't agree with Crawfords rules, it's stupid, having all those medical supplies stored up, for what?!?! They don't need it for anything, if they kick the people out because their a drain on their food, fine, but kicking someone out because their ill is just horrible. I'm not saying that chucking someone out, even if they are a drain on food is fine, but it's more of a reason than for medical problems.

    I dropped Ben because he is a liability, he left Clementine to be eaten by loads of zombies on the street to save his own sorry arse, he indirectly caused the death of Duck, Katjaa and Carley/Doug, and what pisses me off the most, if Ben had grown some when Lilly gets everyone out of the RV onto the road, if Ben had of said something about him making the deal Carley wouldn't be dead and Doug deserved to live, and not jump in front of a bullet for that worthless piece of shit. (Based on my second save play through for a friend who wanted me to choose certain things)

    There, and if I get you sick murderer again I will be annoyed because seriously I don't care if you think that, save your time.
  • edited November 2012
    I'm surprised by the current polls. I set it up with the knowledge that there are 2 consistent philosophical views and I expected them to be paired up. What's actually happened is a kind of philosophical hypocrisy.

    Support Crawford/Drop Ben - No Votes 0%
    This is the most surprising choice. The lack of Crawford supporters is probably a good thing but becomes bizarre when you look below.

    Support Crawford/Save Ben - 4 Votes 7.55%
    We have 4 Crawford supporters, and all of them saved Ben. What the hell? Seems like a strange contradiction but it's about to get even stranger

    Reject Crawford/Drop Ben - 10 Votes 18.87%
    The Humanists (or Crawford objectors) are more likely to drop Ben than the survivalists. It's truly strange that people would be against Crawford and then follow through with exactly that attitude, for someone that even Crawford probably wouldn't kill. Keep in mind that Ben isn't ill, is the right age and is malleable.

    Reject Crawford/Save Ben - 39 Votes 73.58%
    No surprise on this one, the consistent humanists are the largest group.
  • edited November 2012
    Ninnuendo wrote: »
    I'm surprised by the current polls. I set it up with the knowledge that there are 2 consistent philosophical views and I expected them to be paired up. What's actually happened is a kind of philosophical hypocrisy.

    Support Crawford/Drop Ben - No Votes 0%
    This is the most surprising choice. The lack of Crawford supporters is probably a good thing but becomes bizarre when you look below.

    Support Crawford/Save Ben - 4 Votes 7.55%
    We have 4 Crawford supporters, and all of them saved Ben. What the hell? Seems like a strange contradiction but it's about to get even stranger

    Reject Crawford/Drop Ben - 10 Votes 18.87%
    The Humanists (or Crawford objectors) are more likely to drop Ben than the survivalists. It's truly strange that people would be against Crawford and then follow through with exactly that attitude, for someone that even Crawford probably wouldn't kill. Keep in mind that Ben isn't ill, is the right age and is malleable.

    Reject Crawford/Save Ben - 39 Votes 73.58%
    No surprise on this one, the consistent humanists are the largest group.

    (stupid teen skater voice) whhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttt????
  • edited November 2012
    Reject Crawford/Save Ben

    Crawford took survival to a stupid level that was bound to fail.
    Ben still has potential to shine. I believe in the kid.
  • edited November 2012
    Ninnuendo wrote: »
    Reject Crawford/Drop Ben - 10 Votes 18.87%
    The Humanists (or Crawford objectors) are more likely to drop Ben than the survivalists. It's truly strange that people would be against Crawford and then follow through with exactly that attitude, for someone that even Crawford probably wouldn't kill. Keep in mind that Ben isn't ill, is the right age and is malleable.
    Nothing hypocritic here, these folks would have no problem accepting folks like Vernon's people into their group while Ben on the other hand isn't just useless, he gets people killed. And Crawford would definitely give Ben the boot once he does something stupid in the typical Ben fashion.
  • edited November 2012
    Nothing hypocritic here, these folks would have no problem accepting folks like Vernon's people into their group while Ben on the other hand isn't just useless, he gets people killed. And Crawford would definitely give Ben the boot once he does something stupid in the typical Ben fashion.

    Crawford wouldn't boot out Ben.

    He'd "accidently" fuck up and kill them all before they could :D
  • edited November 2012
    Nothing hypocritic here, these folks would have no problem accepting folks like Vernon's people into their group while Ben on the other hand isn't just useless, he gets people killed.

    In amongst Vernon's group are 3 people who are sick. They'd take those people in, knowing they could die in the night, but let the healthy teenager die? It's completely hypocritical to take the stance as a humanist, then pick and choose who dies, that's exactly what Crawford does.
  • edited November 2012
    Ninnuendo wrote: »
    In amongst Vernon's group are 3 people who are sick. They'd take those people in, knowing they could die in the night, but let the healthy teenager die? It's completely hypocritical to take the stance as a humanist, then pick and choose who dies, that's exactly what Crawford does.
    Their cancers were in remission, and giving Ben the boot after he gets 5 people killed, 4 of them group members, as well as coming within a hair of getting Lee's entire group killed during the Crawford raid isn't just picking and choosing who dies, it's eliminating the greatest threat to the group's survivability before he screws up again. And keep in mind that none of Ben's screw-ups are minor, he screwed up 3 times by my count and each time at least 1 person died.
  • edited November 2012
    ben would be accepted into the crawford society, he wasn't ill or old or a child, he was a healthy teen/young adult, exactly what crawford would want
  • edited November 2012
    ben would be accepted into the crawford society, he wasn't ill or old or a child, he was a healthy teen, exactly what crawford would want
    He would've. Lasting there is another matter, maybe he would've been fine, but if he makes a stupid mistake that gets someone killed then I'd imagine in a place like Crawford he'd get the firing squad.
  • edited November 2012
    Their cancers were in remission

    Vernon says they're sick and they obviously wouldn't have had a significant checkup in some time.
    giving Ben the boot after he gets 5 people killed, 4 of them group members, as well as coming within a hair of getting Lee's entire group killed during the Crawford raid isn't just picking and choosing who dies, it's eliminating the greatest threat to the group's survivability before he screws up again. And keep in mind that none of Ben's screw-ups are minor, he screwed up 3 times by my count and each time at least 1 person died.

    Let's just examine this for a moment.

    Ben actually succeeds in protecting the group. He supplies the bandits and they stay away. Duck and Katjaa aren't his fault, they're Lillys (and by extension, Kennys).
    You also can't really blame him for Carley or Doug, he tries in every way to get out of that situation without getting killed. Once again the blame lays with Lilly (and by extension, Kenny)
    He's somewhat responsible for Chuck, but Chuck made that choice.
    As for Bree, yeah he's at fault but once again he's just doing what he's told. I blame Gary Whitta for that one.
  • edited November 2012
    I reject Crawford's policy. They didn't make sense to me, especially with not wanting any children. How can you expect the human race to survive that way? People are people, and to look at the mthe way they did is very sickening and cold.

    I didn't let Ben die...even if he was a pain in the ass, I just couldn't let him die..even when it came down to voting him out of the group I just couldn't do it because that is the same as killing him. I hate the guy really especially when he got scared and didn't help Clem and when he took the axe out from the door.. Even so, it just seems wrong to kill Ben. He didn't directly kill Duck or Kaatja..hell, he was pretty naive but in the end the kid just wanted to see his friend again. He never had malicious intentions. I'm sure Kenny would have done something if bandits had his son or wife..
    I believe in redemption, I think Ben will be a great person to have on your side in episode 5.
  • edited November 2012
    duck is dead because of bandits/zombies, katjaa killed herself, Carley/Doug are dead because of Lilly, Chuck/bree are dead because of zombies, mark is dead because of bandits/St johns and Larry is dead because of a heart condition.

    ben didn't kill anyone
  • edited November 2012
    Ninnuendo wrote: »
    Vernon says they're sick and they obviously wouldn't have had a significant checkup in some time.
    True, but I don't see why they wouldn't have been as fine as Vernon and Brie if Crawford took care of them instead of kicking them out.
    Ninnuendo wrote: »
    Ben actually succeeds in protecting the group. He supplies the bandits and they stay away. Duck and Katjaa aren't his fault, they're Lillys (and by extension, Kennys).
    No, Ben bought a temporary unstable peace but because he kept the deal a secret the bandits attacked as soon as the stolen supplies were found. Further, the bandits did attack before and were repelled due to the wall so thanks to the secret deal the group was lulled into a false sense of security. If they knew that the bandits were still an issue then the group could've planned to either stay and further strengthen the defenses or keep the deal going and get out ASAP. Either way, a major issue like the bandits require the entire group to be on the same page, that Ben thought he could handle it alone shows incredible arrogance and ignorance...a very dangerous combination. And blaming Kenny is silly, he wanted to leave at the soonest possible moment and if the group knew that the bandits were still an issue then I suspect that the rest of the group would either talk some sense into Lilly or leave her there and go with Kenny.
    Ninnuendo wrote: »
    You also can't really blame him for Carley or Doug, he tries in every way to get out of that situation without getting killed. Once again the blame lays with Lilly (and by extension, Kenny)
    While Lilly was less stable after the death of Larry it's the discovery that someone is stealing medicine and supplies that send her off the deep end. This can be seen in the first conversation you and Kenny have with Lilly in Ep. 3, you actually have as close to a civil conversation with her as can be expected until she mentions that someone in the group is stealing from the group at which point she becomes extremely irritated, talks about how the number of people in the group that she can trust gets smaller by the day, and ends the conversation. Ben's secret deal is the root cause of Lilly losing it to extent that she kills Carley/Doug which makes Ben and Lilly equally responsible for their deaths, IMO.
    Ninnuendo wrote: »
    He's somewhat responsible for Chuck, but Chuck made that choice.
    A choice that would've been completely unneeded had Ben just grabbed Clem's hand before running.
    Ninnuendo wrote: »
    As for Bree, yeah he's at fault but once again he's just doing what he's told. I blame Gary Whitta for that one.
    C'mon, if you know Ben's so stupid that Kenny should've said, "Btw, don't take the hatchet that's barring the main door which is the only thing keeping the zombies around Crawford from storming in to kill us all", then can't you see why some people are too afraid of Ben's utter lack of common sense to have him around?
  • edited November 2012
    duck is dead because of bandits/zombies, katjaa killed herself, Carley/Doug are dead because of Lilly, Chuck/bree are dead because of zombies, mark is dead because of bandits/St johns and Larry is dead because of a heart condition.

    ben didn't kill anyone
    Directly, no but indirectly, yes.
  • edited November 2012
    Directly, no but indirectly, yes.

    then we should blame Danny because he indirectly caused all of the interaction between ben and our group, if he didn't set the trap that got David we would either have never meet Ben, or he would have his teacher and his friend to keep him out of trouble
  • edited November 2012
    then we should blame Danny because he indirectly caused all of the interaction between ben and our group, if he didn't set the trap that got David we would either have never meet Ben, or he would have his teacher and his friend to keep him out of trouble
    I think that's reaching a bit too far...sure, it's because of Danny that we were stuck with the greatest disaster magnet in the TWD universe for at least 2 episodes, but Ben isn't an inanimate object. If Ben made better choices at the motel, Savannah, and the Crawford raid, or simply sat in the corner staring at a wall then a whole lot of grief could've been averted. At most, both Danny and Ben gets the blame, but Danny is supposed to be a d-bag while Ben, for the most part is a good kid that wants to help but is so stupid and lacking in common sense that he can't do anything without causing a catastrophe.
  • edited November 2012
    Directly, no but indirectly, yes.

    Might aswell blame the cop for crashing into the first zombie we saw then, had that not happened Lee might have ended up in completely different predicaments.

    Indirect blame is pure bullshit. It's just an excuse for those too cowardly to blame those actually responsible even if they can't get justice from them.
  • edited November 2012
    cormoran wrote: »
    Indirect blame is pure bullshit. It's just an excuse for those too cowardly to blame those actually responsible even if they can't get justice from them.
    Sometimes that's true, and sometimes, like here, that's nonsense...take Crawford for example. Brie would still be alive if Ben didn't take the hatchet from the door. Instead, he took the hatchet, which leads to Brie's death and could very well have led to the deaths of everyone else, there's no way he can't be held responsible for that, IMO.
  • edited November 2012
    Sometimes that's true, and sometimes, like here, that's nonsense...take Crawford for example. Brie would still be alive if Ben didn't take the hatchet from the door. Instead, he took the hatchet, which leads to Brie's death and could very well have led to the deaths of everyone else, there's no way he can't be held responsible for that, IMO.

    bree would still be alive if she had been paying attention and not wanted a vote on something that i felt she had no place being involved in voting on, why not blame the guy that died and became a zombie if he had not been an idiot and died he wouldn't have eaten bree, or we should blame lee for not telling everybody that the zombies want to come in the door and even if they go don't take the hatchet because it is there for a reason and they may come back
  • edited November 2012
    To be honest you gota give it to ben... After all the moment he joined the group lilly and everyone gave him shit, he lost a teacher/friend already. A lot of people was against him because he was young and useless. He got crap from the bandits causing that deal and fight at the motor inn. Lilly killing doug/carley was his fault but wasnt intentional, still putting a lot of pressure on him futher on in the game. Poor kid...
  • edited November 2012
    I saved Ben. You don't kill a person over mistakes. Mistakes can't be helped, it happens to all of us. To blame him for his dumbness (He's young and inexperienced) let alone kill him over it is inhuman. He thought the bandits had his friend and he wanted to save him, I don't blame him. The blood on the door was so think you couldn't see the zombies (And not hear them?) so Ben thought the axe was a good choice. Crawford. The barrier was a great idea IMO, but the eliminating the weak is a bit excessive. I won't blame them if they exile mentally ill or retarded people, but kids?! Elderly!? Pregnant woman who don't want a abortion!? That's just wrong. "If we lose our humanity duo to survival, are we not the same as those beasts?" -unknown (I forgot who said it)
This discussion has been closed.