The most unfair of life/death choice

I've been wondering....

It is quite obvious that had Sarah survived to the end of Episode 4, the two most vulnerable survivors in the group would be Sarah herself and the baby.

If it came down to a point where you would have to save either the baby or Sarah in another life/death situation, who would you choose to save and why? Let's for the sake of the question that choosing one person to save ensures that person's life for the long term, while not choosing another ensures death for that unfortunate soul.

Is it all about whether or not a person is a liability or a burden? Is it about which person is a bigger liability and a burden? Is it about friendship? Is it about who is more special, more deserving because he/she is a helpless baby/troubled girl? Is it something else entirely?

And does any of the choices anyone would make in this situation represent correct or wrong?

«1

Comments

  • Baby, because babies are helpless. The goal is always (in my opinion) to save everyone and Sarah stands a better chance than a baby of saving herself.

  • Obviously the baby. Sarah was useless. People saying she had a "disability" or it was justified. . . idc why she was useless but she certainly was useless. And I didn't hate her but she was a liability to the group, and that no one can disagree with. The baby should have a chance to survive at least.

  • Probably Sarah. She would be way easier to take care of.

  • Woah, woah, woah. As much of a liability as Sarah was, the baby is WAAAAY the fuck more useless. Sarah was a mess but at least she can walk on her own, heed warnings to run/hide, feed herself, carry stuff, not randomly cry because she feels itchy, etc. The baby, on the other hand, won't stop being completely useless for at least the next 4 years.

    I guess I was touching this with a 60-foot pole after all...

    Obviously the baby. Sarah was useless. People saying she had a "disability" or it was justified. . . idc why she was useless but s

  • That is a valid point. But I disagree. Sarah was broken. Couldn't move and didn't want to move at times. Just for the sake of humanity I would take the baby, but overall the marginal utility of Sarah was really not more significant than the baby. I admit the baby will be hard to raise as evident with what happened to Christa, but Sarah was not going to improve ever. Don't say she was going to snap back into reality, she was gone. The baby will grow up knowing what it is to live in the apocalypse

    DomeWing333 posted: »

    Woah, woah, woah. As much of a liability as Sarah was, the baby is WAAAAY the fuck more useless. Sarah was a mess but at least she

  • This is a very difficult choice for me, since Sarah, Carlos, Rebecca and Alvin were all my favourite characters.

    Would you save Sarah? Your possible best friend, a girl with anxiety disorder, separation disorder and blindness. A girl whose kind to the core of her heart, who wants to survive and wanted Clementine to teach her how to. A girl whose gone through so much only recently, getting slapped by her dad, watching Carver murder Reggie right in front of her, watching her dad get shot and devoured, knowing that Luke and Jane wanted to leave her behind at the trailer park. She was quite allot like Clementine in Season 1, but she never got the chance to prove herself. Carlos asks Clementine to look after Sarah and Clementine could promise to be Sarah's best friend. She was one of the few that didn't give a crud about Carver's morning speech.

    Would you save the baby? Rebecca and Alvin's baby, they want Clementine to be around their baby and took look after him. The baby has been born into a cruel fated world, it needs to be the group's primary concern. Kenny has been in a good mood since the baby arrive and really cares for it. It will need to be kept warm at all times, kept fed when required and looking after constantly. If the baby cries it could lure Walkers straight to the group, but the baby is rather light, but then again, someone will be too busy holding the baby. This baby has already been through much, being dropped in the cold snow and then having his mother, Rebecca, killed right in front of him.

    Both may be called 'liabilities', but both can become a force to be reckoned with.

  • If I knew we were knew a supposed sanctuary, I would save the baby. That way, it could be raised properly and no longer a liability. But if were out on the road with no location, I would pick Sarah. I was hoping that the whole situation in the trailer park would teach her to be able to fight.

  • That's only if you leave her behind in the trailer. If she lives long enough to reach the observation deck and die in a way that had nothing to do with her trauma, it becomes evident that she WAS coming around and was struggling not to die. Given a little more time and support, she would have come around.

    The baby, on the other hand, won't even be able to walk or talk for another year.

    That is a valid point. But I disagree. Sarah was broken. Couldn't move and didn't want to move at times. Just for the sake of huma

  • I'd actually put the odds of Sarah at least somewhat mentally recovering from her trauma in 4 years to be equal to or higher than the odds of keeping a newborn baby alive for 4 years. They're both astronomically low given the current circumstances, but I'd definitely give Sarah the edge here. It's pretty speculative though.

    Another consideration is that the baby's capacity to experience suffering is probably a lot more rudimentary than Sarah's. So if your goal is to limit the amount of suffering caused by actions, then saving Sarah would be the way to go.

    That is a valid point. But I disagree. Sarah was broken. Couldn't move and didn't want to move at times. Just for the sake of huma

  • Not a chance! If you are saying that Sarah was coming around when 10 zombies were 3 ft from eating her face off, I think that is a little extreme. Sarah was never going to come around.

    Bokor posted: »

    That's only if you leave her behind in the trailer. If she lives long enough to reach the observation deck and die in a way that

  • edited August 2014

    We must be playing different games. I guess every one on this forum is all of a sudden a doctor dishing out "anxiety disorder" and "seperation disorder"

    prink34320 posted: »

    This is a very difficult choice for me, since Sarah, Carlos, Rebecca and Alvin were all my favourite characters. Would you save

  • Try saying that after seeing your dad get eaten alive mere hours ago. She was in a state of total shock, but that in no way implies it was permanent. I'm a bit perturbed by you writing her off so casually - how about Kenny acting pretty much the same way, isolating himself for hours in a raging stupor?

    Not a chance! If you are saying that Sarah was coming around when 10 zombies were 3 ft from eating her face off, I think that is a little extreme. Sarah was never going to come around.

  • I can argue that Sarah had no chance of snapping out of it, but rather Ill just say: you save the baby for humanity. Its just the moral thing to do. A theme in this game is all about losing your humanity or keeping it, I think saving a baby with a chance or some hope that the apocalypse ends is the only choice.

    DomeWing333 posted: »

    I'd actually put the odds of Sarah at least somewhat mentally recovering from her trauma in 4 years to be equal to or higher than

  • Or maybe they are actually applying their internet savviness and education to their words.

    We must be playing different games. I guess every one on this forum is all of a sudden a doctor dishing out "anxiety disorder" and "seperation disorder"

  • Letting a teenage girl die just because she doesn't immediately recover from having her only loved one die in front of her is inhumane. Writing off anyone who doesn't act like an emotionless robot is, well, something a robot would do.

    I can argue that Sarah had no chance of snapping out of it, but rather Ill just say: you save the baby for humanity. Its just the

  • edited August 2014

    To be fair, letting your emotions out, even if they take on an ugly form as Kenny's did, is a more encouraging psychological response than shutting down and denying reality like Sarah showed. Kenny, even without intervention, seemed like he could have at least partially snapped back given some time. Sarah, on the other hand, seemed like she needed a lot more direct theraputic treatment and I wasn't sure she was going to get it with everything the way it was.

    Bokor posted: »

    Try saying that after seeing your dad get eaten alive mere hours ago. She was in a state of total shock, but that in no way impli

  • The problem with Kenny's 'recovery' is that he, too, bottles everything up and, after his outburst, denies that there's anything wrong. He channels his grief and anger into his sense of duty, his new goal being the protection of Carver's son (as opposed to getting to a boat). It's a little creepy to see him act nonchalant and say he's 'fine' when just a few minutes ago he was clearly a mess. If anything bad happens to the baby, and it will, he'll snap completely.

    We've also seen him have a couple of psychotic breaks - when he hallucinates Duck's presence in episode 2, and then re-enacts Carver's death upon a hapless zombie in episode 4. He's not completely non-functional, but I'd say his mental state is just as fragile as Sarah's. They just happen to manifest in different ways.

    Sarah may never be 'fine', but with Clem as her emotional support she'd likely have recovered. Losing her, however, would probably break her completely. All of this is now irrelevant considering that she's gone and we can't speculate her development...

    ...but if I was to choose between a baby and a slightly older child, I'd go for the child. It's horrific to let either of them to die, but I'd justify it by saying that the baby is too mentally undeveloped to really grasp what it's lost.

    DomeWing333 posted: »

    To be fair, letting your emotions out, even if they take on an ugly form as Kenny's did, is a more encouraging psychological respo

  • He channels his grief and anger into his sense of duty, his new goal being the protection of Carver's son (as opposed to getting to a boat).

    That's a good thing. That's pretty much the best thing he can do given his circumstances.

    when he hallucinates Duck's presence in episode 2

    Nah, that wasn't a hallucination. It was a slip of the tongue. Him saying that surprised him just as much as everyone else.

    He's not completely non-functional, but I'd say his mental state is just as fragile as Sarah's.

    Yeah. I think this is the problem that people have with Sarah. They look at Kenny and Clem and see these people who've gone through so much and are able to pull through and do so much because of their willpower and then look at Sarah and think "Why can't you do it?" And it's exactly as she say to Clem: "Not everyone can be like you."

    Bokor posted: »

    The problem with Kenny's 'recovery' is that he, too, bottles everything up and, after his outburst, denies that there's anything w

  • It's about the way they express their pain. Sarah shuts down and tries not to hurt anyone, while Kenny gets vicious and has tantrums - we even see this back in Episode 3, where Kenny picks a fight with Mike while Sarah isolates herself in the greenhouse. I'd also point out that Kenny's tantrum, regardless of how 'justified' it would be, caused zombies to enter the compound.

    But the point I'm making by drawing parallels between Sarah and Kenny is that it's likely Sarah would have been able to recover somewhat if her friends - Rebecca and Clem - were there to give her emotional support. A lot of people seem to understand just how important it is to Kenny to have someone to rely on, and someone to unload his feelings onto.

    It'd be interesting to see how Sarah would reacted to Rebecca's baby.

    DomeWing333 posted: »

    He channels his grief and anger into his sense of duty, his new goal being the protection of Carver's son (as opposed to getting t

  • Pardon me for having an anxiety and separation disorder and relating to a character.

    We must be playing different games. I guess every one on this forum is all of a sudden a doctor dishing out "anxiety disorder" and "seperation disorder"

  • I know I'm going to get thumbs down for this one but after thinking about it for a long while I think the most logical choice is to save Sarah. After episode 4 I've felt like after Sarah's death it was pretty clear that Humanity is as good as dead. There is no hope of humans truly surviving so why put hope into a child who is already doomed. You would be putting a new life through hell which I thought was too cruel. Some of that being that it would be nearly impossible to raise a "healthy" baby. I figured that trying to raise a baby would actually be more depressing than spending the rest of your short life with a friend.

  • I'm sure there were children who were doing alright in Carver's community, even if it was a fascist prison that is now overrun. And even if Wellington is not a stable community, the fact that the videogame exists in the comic timeline means that there are plenty of survivalist groups in which it is possible for a child to be born.

    I guess it's interesting that the hopelessness of Season 2 really has gotten to some people...

    Lumlotus posted: »

    I know I'm going to get thumbs down for this one but after thinking about it for a long while I think the most logical choice is t

  • edited August 2014

    Yes but is it truly surviving if "humanity" is dead? Nobody is "human" anymore and if there happens to be that rare chance that one is they are first to die because, as everyone puts it, they are "weak" or a "liability". My point is that that particular world isn't worth saving so better die happy rather than hoping it will get better when I already know it won't. (At least to me.)

    Bokor posted: »

    I'm sure there were children who were doing alright in Carver's community, even if it was a fascist prison that is now overrun. A

  • If TWD really was 'realistic', yes, the world would still be full of people worth saving. I'd say Season 2 is deliberately trying to present Clementine as the living embodiment of hope in a world where everyone else's is gone and the only ones left are broken messes.

    People have been through horrible cataclysms tons of times. In fact, there's a subtle irony in Amid The Ruins that often goes unnoticed - the Civil War, despite having lasting repercussions and being a miserable time for the American people, eventually ended. The line "Oh, when will this cruel war end?" is ironic because we know the Civil War DID end.

    My point is that this period of horror and death, however interminable it may seem, will not last forever.

    Lumlotus posted: »

    Yes but is it truly surviving if "humanity" is dead? Nobody is "human" anymore and if there happens to be that rare chance that on

  • "Internet savviness"

    HA. Loving it!

    Bokor posted: »

    Or maybe they are actually applying their internet savviness and education to their words.

  • edited August 2014

    It will not last forever as in until everyone dies out? The statue seems to display a man with humanity still in him. Even if Clem is the same as that man and was that last hope it doesn't matter if no one listens and no one tries. Even if Clem did her best to prove there was still hope no one was willing to change which in the long run causes all of them to be a liability to themselves. Everyone was either too selfish or looking out for themselves and not very many for anyone else nor did they take the consideration of other's needs. The Civil War, even though terrible, was for others and others banned together for something greater there was hope there. The only person fighting this war is Clem. A single girl that can't do it alone but everyone was too selfish with their wants and needs to care. So there is no point in "that world" to bring hope into something that just won't be.

    Bokor posted: »

    If TWD really was 'realistic', yes, the world would still be full of people worth saving. I'd say Season 2 is deliberately trying

  • At the same time, I think the writers are going for presenting a civil war between Luke & Kenny whom Clem will be responsible for bringing together. It's not exactly a theme I would go for, but if they manage to make those guys sympathetic I'd be for it.

    Ideally, I'd keep the weak and vulnerable alive no matter what - the only instances in which killing them is justified is when they're already doomed (bitten). If you really want to be practical, keeping Sarah alive is the better choice. As creepy as it will sound, young women are very important to keeping the species alive. It's better to keep girls like Clem and Sarah alive until they are old enough and safe enough to consider having children, than it is to risk having a child whilst constantly on the move.

    (Considering Clem's experiences with expectant mothers so far, I doubt she'd ever want to have a baby herself.)

    Lumlotus posted: »

    It will not last forever as in until everyone dies out? The statue seems to display a man with humanity still in him. Even if Clem

  • Yes I agree with this. After thinking about it more keeping Sarah alive does bring about more hope for the very reasons you said.

    Bokor posted: »

    At the same time, I think the writers are going for presenting a civil war between Luke & Kenny whom Clem will be responsible

  • Obviously fuck it! i'm saving sarah... it's hard to raise a baby during in zombie apocalypse, doesn't meant that i'm a baby hater or etc... and sarah's wasn't useless i don't blame her for being like that it was her father for sheltering her that much he didn't teach her daughter how lee did to clementine , carlos thought they will be with his daughter together forever they aren't prepared for this kind of situation they were facing..

    Obviously the baby. Sarah was useless. People saying she had a "disability" or it was justified. . . idc why she was useless but s

  • edited August 2014

    Obviously fuck it! i'm saving sarah... it's hard to raise a baby during in zombie apocalypse, doesn't meant that i'm a baby hater or etc... and sarah's wasn't useless i don't blame her for being like that it was her father for sheltering her that much he didn't teach her daughter how lee did to clementine , carlos thought they will be with his daughter together forever they aren't prepared for this kind of situation they were facing.. AND YOU SOUND LIKE FUCKING BECCA OR GREG MILLER(Ign)....

    Obviously the baby. Sarah was useless. People saying she had a "disability" or it was justified. . . idc why she was useless but s

  • Eh, this would be an incredibly easy decision for me. I'd feel guilty as hell for letting down Rebecca, but Sarah for sure.

  • I like sarah and all but i'd save the baby

  • lol I could not care less if Sarah being useless was justified or not, the fact is : She was, and was going to continue to be, useless. I understand her dad died and that is incredibly hard, but that doesn't take away from the fact she was a huge liability to the group.

    Mich19 posted: »

    Obviously fuck it! i'm saving sarah... it's hard to raise a baby during in zombie apocalypse, doesn't meant that i'm a baby hater

  • You know what? I'd save Sarah, because I don't like the baby. I don't like babies, I'm an asshole I know, the baby does nothing for the story for me and I actually really liked Sarah's character. The baby is even more of a liability to the group than Sarah was too. In fact, heartless as this may sound, I'd give the baby up for pretty much anyone. I don't like the idea of Clementine roaming around with a baby.

  • Well....if you're going with the "useless" angle....the baby is far less useful than Sarah. At least she doesn't have to be carried around.

    Obviously the baby. Sarah was useless. People saying she had a "disability" or it was justified. . . idc why she was useless but s

  • I disagree. Sarah couldn't move TWICE. Faced with imminent death, Sarah still could be motivated to move. It took Clem slapping her and forcing her up to save. Carrying the baby around is easy and painless. Kenny seems reinvigorated because of the baby. I am sure he will have no concern carrying it around.

    Well....if you're going with the "useless" angle....the baby is far less useful than Sarah. At least she doesn't have to be carried around.

  • Lol it's a less than 1 day old baby like 4 hours old, how is this even a comparison? Lol the babe is just a fresh meat..fresh.........

  • Sarah couldn't move once....She was pretty detached from reality at that current moment, she probably didn't even know her life was in danger. And can you blame her? She's fairly young, sheltered, and watched her beloved father get eaten by zombies just a few hours prior.

    Despite that, if you save her she shows extreme improvement over the rest of the episode. For a bit she decides her dad is still alive, but after that she starts walking around on her own willingly and even struggles for her life wanting help in her second death scene. So I think given more time she would have made more improvement, and if Clementine used the right words, she probably would have been able to be useful to the group.

    I disagree. Sarah couldn't move TWICE. Faced with imminent death, Sarah still could be motivated to move. It took Clem slapping he

  • i also suffer from an anxiety and separation disorder :(

    prink34320 posted: »

    Pardon me for having an anxiety and separation disorder and relating to a character.

Sign in to comment in this discussion.