User Avatar Image

Is Luke the worst friend?

posted by MustacheKing on - Viewed by 7.5K users

Yes he is. He treats Nick like a kid and acts all superior to him. Nick needs moral support and Luke doesn't give him any. Luke was even giving Nick shit about telling Walter the truth. What a horrible friend.

  • Did you see me talking about this on the TWD Confessions thread? Because I feel the same way. He kind of reminds me of people in my life who've patronized me and put me down and tried to hide things from me when I'm struggling because they thought I was "acting childish" or "couldn't handle it", which isn't at all true and only serves to make you feel worse.

    I don't think he means to be that way because he clearly does care about Nick. But he's just... really not good at being an emotionally supportive friend to him.

    • Luke's complete garbage. Nick needs better friends.

      • It's hard, because they knew each other before the apocalypse and probably rely on each other a lot for just that semblance of the old life and the way things used to be. Nick is clearly aware of what Luke thinks of him and it makes him feel terrible but he still wouldn't want to lose Luke as a friend because (what Luke doesn't seem to realize judging by his comment about Uncle Pete being Nick's last anchor) Luke is really the last thing he has.

        It's kind of sad. It's really obvious that Nick puts a lot more value on Luke than Luke does him.

  • You know that friend you have who's always screwing things up and pissing everybody off and getting you into all of this trouble with everyone else around you? That's Nick. Luke is trying his best to look out for Nick. He's trying to keep him from doing stupid shit and covering for his mistakes and that kind of dynamic ends up being kind of paternal after a little while. He's not a bad friend. It's just hard to be friends with a screw-up.

    • Nick's only a screw-up because Luke is never there for emotional support.

      • Nick's mistakes aren't Luke's fault but he definitely exacerbates them by either grossly underestimating or putting unnecessary pressure on Nick.

      • Based on what Pete said, that's patently untrue. Besides, how can you blame Nick almost shooting Clem in the face on a "lack of emotional support"? Or him rushing over and Matthew when Luke specifically told him not to? If you're going to use Luke's supposed lack of emotional support to excuse every bad decision Nick makes, you're patronizing him far worse than Luke is.

        • Still Luke is a bad friend for not being there for Nick when Nick is down in the dumps.

          • Not being there?

            You mean like that time he expresses concerns to Pete about taking Clem in because he was worried about Nick was going to feel?And those concerns ended up being completely validated by Nick's actions? Or when he tries to persuade Clem to give Nick another chance if she refuses to forgive him? Or when he comforts Nick and gives him a hug after Pete died? Or when Nick expresses regret for killing Matthew at dinner and Luke consoles him and tell him not to think about it?

            Luke is there for Nick all the goddamn time.

            • Luke still takes Nick wanting to die lightly. He lies to Nick and keeps secrets from him. He calls him a kid and acts all superior to him. He bosses Nick around like "stay here with the group" and "don't tell Walter" which is sickening. Nick is an adult not a kid so Luke should treat him like one. Luke doesn't give him emotional support when Nick is depressed which is dangerous.

              • How did he take it lightly? He just remarked that it wasn't the first time Nick has been like that. What do you expect Luke to do? Put him on permanent suicide watch? Take away his gun? Have someone watching him 24/7?

                If Nick had stayed with the group, Matthew wouldn't have gotten shot. Luke knows that Nick is trigger-happy and now he's depressed. Taking a depressed, trigger-happy person on a mission that requires steadiness is dangerous for everyone involved. That was evident by what happened with Matthew.

                Luke had no idea who Walter was. For all he knew, he could be someone like Kenny who would immediately lash out and kill anyone who hurt his loved ones. It was the same reason why Lee told Ben not to tell Kenny that he was the one who stole the supplies. If Walter had been more like Kenny, Nick would've been knifed as soon as he spoke up.

                Nick may be an adult but he acts like a kid most of the time. He's hot-headed and impulsive and does what he feels without considering the consequences of his actions. There's only so much you can do for someone like that.

      • Luke was there for Nick when Pete was discovered dead. Yes, he's hard on Nick, but judging from all Nick's done (shooting Matthew off a bridge, nearly shooting Clementine, etc.) he needs someone to help lead him down the right path, especially since Pete died.

    • Jesus I am so sick of people calling Nick a screw up.

      • Even though this doesn't excuse Luke's behavior toward Nick. I kind of agree that Nick is sort of a screw-up (not as bad as Ben and not that it's his fault). He almost shoots Clementine and shoots Matthew. He's only a screw-up with a gun because of that itchy trigger finger but other than that he's not that bad.

      • Screw up? Well... He sort of is.maybe not a big one, not one on part with Ben... but I still feel safe calling him a screw up.

      • Well, Nick IS a screw up. He's almost shot both Pete and Clem on separate occasions, and DID end up shooting Matthew by doing exactly what Luke told him not to do. He's nowhere near as bad as Ben, though.

    • I could argue that covering for Nick's mistakes is what's harmful for him as it doesn't allow for him to grow. His ability to make better decisions can only be improved through experience not by being sheltered from making them altogether.

      • You could, but then you would have to argue that Luke has been covering for Nick to such an extent that it doesn't allow for him to see when he's made a mistake and I just don't think that's true.

        Based on Nick's conversation with Clementine in the shed, he knows full well that he's fucked up numerous times by now without Luke having to remind him of it. The only mistake that Luke really "covered" for him on is the thing with Matthew, which Nick had already expressed regret about before learning about Matthew's identity. And that wasn't even the first time that Nick has fired a gun at someone because he was overeager to protect his friends. The guy just doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes.

        • Not necessarily. Feeling bad doesn't guarantee he'll come away from the incident with the right message. As it is, every time he makes a mistake it just feeds into his self esteem issues.

          What bothers me about the bridge incident is most people treat it as a mistake only he could've made. When it's made abundantly clear it was a mistake based on misreading the situation because of distance (and arriving late). Alvin himself said it looked like Matthew had his gun on them (hence Nick's claim that Alvin would've taken the shot).

          • Well now I'm confused. If it's as you say and anyone could have made the mistake that Nick made on the bridge, then what message should Nick have come away from the incident with? Or are you just speaking generally? Because generally speaking, I haven't seen Luke cover for any more of Nick's mistakes. He was only covering for Nick this time because he was afraid that Walter would try to seek vengeance on Nick. Walter ended up being a better man than that, but Luke couldn't have known this, at least not to the extent he was willing to risk his friend's life.

            We don't know how other people would have reacted to the situation if they were in Nick's shoes because Nick was the only one who jumped in. Maybe Alvin would have taken the shot. Maybe he would have just approached cautiously while pointing a gun at Matthew. We don't know. What we do know is that Nick has apparently had a history of discharging his firearm when he shouldn't. He seems to acknowledge this to some extent and yet continues to carry around and fire off his gun willy-nilly. That's negligence on his part. But the only solution, it seems, is to keep him from carrying around a gun altogether, but then we're back to patronizing him. There's just no good way to deal with someone like Nick.

            • Just so you know I only brought up why covering for Nick could be harmful because of this comment by you

              He's trying to keep him from doing stupid shit and covering for his mistakes and that kind of dynamic endks up being kind of paternal after a little while.

              I actually agree that we haven't seen much of this from Luke yet. It's only if they adopt the dynamic you mention it'll probably cause more harm than good, IMO.

              However, what happened on the bridge is not the same as accidentally discharging a gun so I don't think that's a fair assessment to make. Nick saw, judged the situation, and fired. Turns out his judgement was wrong and that's hardly exclusive to him as the group's episode one actions demonstrate. I'm of the opinion that Luke made the wrong call on this one; he should've brought Nick with them if he really wanted to keep him under control (and at least Nick would've gotten the whole picture).

              • If Luke keeps covering for Nick's mistakes, yes, I think that would be bad, but trying to keep him from doing stupid things by putting some distance between him and sensitive or volatile situations seems a reasonable enough strategy. Granted, it hasn't worked out all that well in practice, but it's how I would personally try to deal with someone like Nick.

                The incident that Pete recalled was an accidental discharge but I was under the impression that the shot he fired at Clem was voluntary in every case except the one where Clem keeps silent. The face he made immediately after shooting so was one of anger, not shock. But even if we take the incident on the bridge by itself, Nick admits to Clem that "Maybe I am losing it. I don't know anymore." yet still holds onto his gun and refuses to give it up at the ski lodge. Nick's main problem is that he refuses to accept when his emotional instability is becoming a problem. Instead of taking a moment to reassess where he's at, he soldiers forth to try to prove how "okay" he is and ends up fucking things up more.

                Finally, the Luke thing may be a bit of hindsight bias. Sure, it's possible that bringing Nick along would have helped reign him in a little more, but it's also possible that things could have turned out even worse. All I can say is that, at the time. I probably wouldn't have trusted Nick to have my back crossing the bridge either.

                • We've no proof that "emotional instability" had anything to do with his actions. That's Luke's assumption which frankly after enduring for so long I'm not surprised that Nick was beginning to consider it himself. No one else in the group wanted to relieve their weapons either until Clem or Luke take the lead in breaking the stalemate.

                  Hindsight bias wasn't needed. The game already set up Luke's decision making abilities to be called into question. No, that's just an extension of a problem I perceived regarding Nick and Luke's relationship. When Luke asked Clem to watch him I already felt like he was deliberately trying to put some distance between himself and the difficult problem that is Nick (much like his initial rejection of Clem when he thought she was bit). The bridge incident was just another example of that. Luke falters when it comes to difficult/complicated choices. If the whole point of his plan was to keep the whole group safe by not risking everyone then leaving the person he considered a liability to his own devices was not a good move, IMO.

                  • True, we don't have proof that emotional instability was behind Nick's actions (though I don't know what could constitute proof of someone's internal motivations), but the game seems to heavily suggest that this is the case. The people closest to Nick and who know him best, Luke and Pete, both make a note of Nick's lack of emotional control as an explanation for why he does the things he des. Shortly after the incident on the bridge, we also get an option to compare Nick to Lilly's, whose actions were clearly influenced by her emotional instability. Finally, Nick's own explanation about last "accident" that he had with a gun was that he was still emotionally traumatized from when his mother was bitten. Being stuck in the past unable to move on seems to be Nick's character-defining trait, evidence by his own admission that he wishes he could just "keep moving" like Luke. Instead of figuring out how to use his experiences to propel him forward in a better direction, he dwells on the past and lets it dictate his actions. Maybe you have a different interpretation of his character. If so, I'd be interested to hear it.

                    I don't know if the game necessarily sets up Luke's tendency to distance himself from trouble as necessarily a flaw in his decision-making, but I do agree with your general assessment of his character. However, I find it difficult to point to the situation on the bridge as an instance of bad decision-making on Luke's part because like I said before, there was no good way to handle that situation. It might be a bad idea to leave a liability to his own devices, but it's also a bad idea to bring a liability along on a risky mission with you. Either way, there's a risk of that person doing something impulsive and messing things up. Moreover, if Nick had stuck to Luke's plan and just stayed with the group rather than trying to "cover" Luke and Clem, things would have been fine. So it wasn't even Luke's plan that ended up being the problem. It was Nick's deviation from that plan that was the issue and that can't be blamed on Luke whatsoever.

                    • Pete never really gave me that impression. I mean he mentions Nick having a temper but that's not the same thing as emotionally unstable. It seemed what he was trying to get across with his deer story, was that Nick is sensitive despite how outwardly bad he might behave. As for Luke, it's funny but he's obviously saddened if Clem refers to Nick as a crazy person and even tries to explain it away as just a phase he's going through. And yet he himself uses language that clearly favors the interpretation that Nick is unstable ('losing it'). I don't think he knows for certain one way or the other.

                      As to your interpretation of Nick, I have to say that makes a great deal of sense and it goes hand in hand with what I think is a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies. He screws up->gets down on himself->endeavors to do better with overcompensating behavior->screws up again->repeat cycle.

                      Regarding the bridge, it was a tough call and I'll say the responsibility is largely with Nick. However, I was under the impression that it was the issue with the Walkers that initially prompted Nick and the others to come over. I mean they had to be on the lookout to see when they made it across and at one point both Luke and Clem look to be in danger of falling off. So I don't think that should be held against him. Now pointing his gun just because the other guy was armed was unwise and where things went horribly wrong. But had Nick been with them Luke could've neutralized him a lot easier, either with a verbal warning or by putting his arm out across him. If he couldn't manage even that then I'd have to question why they let Nick carry a gun at all.

                      Also not sure we should put too much stock into comparisons with season 1 characters. I mean Nick can be compared to both Lilly and Ben and those two are nothing alike. It feels like those options are there as speculation fodder not something we're meant to take as fact.

  • I don't think so. In his defense, Nick telling Walter the truth really was a horrible idea, because they didn't need more people after them. If Walter didn't suspect (which Luke didn't think he did), how would that conversation go?

    "Oh hey Walter we killed your boyfriend on the bridge thanks for everything see ya."

    And Luke does give him moral support the whole time. The reason he doesn't want to tell Nick is to protect him and make him not feel any worse about his actions.

    • Luke treats Nick like a kid. Always bossing him around.

    • Coming up with the most ineffectual dialogue you could think of doesn't help your point. Unless you really think Luke/Nick are that incompetent, in which case I have no words.

      • My point wasn't really supposed to be that they are incompetent, but moreso no matter how you say it, Walter would only hear/he would single out that they were the ones responsible for Matthew's death.

        • But he does hear more than that, otherwise there'd be no way to save Nick. To be clear, I understand Luke's reasoning but his behavior is a slippery slope. The ones who were wronged were Walter and Matthew, two people who were good to him and his group. If his way of repaying that kindness is to skulk off at dawn without ever fessing up then he'd have rightly earned himself (and the group) a new enemy, IMO.

  • Fuck off man, You are a blind Kenny fan.

  • Something tells me that you only hate Luke this much because Kenny doesn't like him.

  • He treats Nick like a kid and acts all superior to him.

    That's a bit of a stretch. He just wants him to be safe, in his own way. One of the things that come to mind is when he tells him to stay with the group while him and Clem go scouting the bridge. The way I see it, is that after Nick learned what happened to Pete, Luke thought he might screw up in some way. And I can't recall an instance where Luke acted superior to him.

    Luke was even giving Nick shit about telling Walter the truth

    Again, in my opinion, I think he just wanted to protect him. I mean, you don't really tell someone you've just met your friend shot his lover. Especially in the zombie apocalypse. There was simply no way of knowing how Walter would've reacted, and I think it's a safe bet to say that if Clem wasn't there, he would've shot Nick without a second thought.

    • He literally did call him a "kid" though...

      • And some people call their friends kid (for me it's when I feel pity for my friend might be the same for luke)
        Besides this is the exact quote
        "I'm worried about that kid. Keep an eye on him for me, would you?"
        —Luke to Clementine about Nick after Pete's death.
        He cares about nick and he's worried about him (considering nick had lost both his mother and his uncle without even saying goodbye presumably)

        • It's a subconscious way of expressing that you view someone as less mature than you. It's one thing to say it light-heartedly but another thing when you're talking about someone clearly suffering from depression. Luke may not even realize it but he kind of subconsciously views Nick as less mature than him.

          • Yes because right now nick is really less mature (considering his uncle just died) like nick said luke has the trait to move on (or at the very least stay strong) heck for all we know that's what he's doing because when a loved one dies somebody needs to stay strong (still feel saddened but not let it hinder them and they just remember that person and their legacy

          • May I provide a theory on why Luke called Nick a kid?

          • Okay. I think Luke is trying to be Nick's "Uncle Pete." Remember when Luke said "don't be like that man" meaning that he subconsciously thought of him as a grown man then now Uncle Pete is dead and Luke saw how that effected Nick. Now suddenly Luke is saying "I'm worried about that kid." Especially when Pete said "I love that stupid kid." Another example that they're hinting that Luke is trying to be Nick's "Uncle Pete" is when Luke says the same thing that Pete says at the ambulance about looking out for Nick to Clem. Luke has also been on Nick's case lately just like how Uncle Pete was always on Nick's case. Luke thinks that since Nick is so distraught about losing Uncle Pete that he should take that role on with Nick to help Nick. That whole knife situation is something that Pete would've probably did since Luke knows a lot about Pete. Luke is trying to protect Nick, but he's going at it the wrong way. Nick just needs to tell him this.

            I know that you may only feel bad for Nick, but I actually feel bad for both of them. Luke's trying to be something that he's not which is Uncle Pete. Nick is the victim of Luke trying too hard to protect him. Nick needs his friend Luke not another "Uncle Pete." Luke just needs to realize this that's all. Don't forget, Pete was hard on Luke too.

  • A certain someone I know won't be happy when they see this thread :P

  • I could go on commenting didn't have to create a new thread, you could have just commented on your "Am I the only one" thread, it’s still alive you know. :D

  • Lol, another Luke hate thread by the MustacheKing.

    I don't like Luke either, but that is just my personal opinion. Stop this useles hate threads and let it go man. We all know that Kenny is obviously the better character.

  • Luke probably opened Clem's backpack and directed Walter to look in it before telling Nick to deny everything.

    This is because Luke's an insane psychopath.

Add Comment