User Avatar Image

Crawford Vs Ben (or Survival Vs Humanity)

posted by Ninnuendo on - last edited - Viewed by 2.5K users
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.

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
67 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 :)
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

    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.
  • 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'
  • Poll isn't quite going the way I expected, this could be interesting :)
  • 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.
  • 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.
This discussion has been closed.