User Avatar Image

Spoilers\ What was your decision on the two brothers?

posted by DREWBAA on - last edited - Viewed by 1.7K users

I killed them both.

When I finished the game it said only 12% of players killed them..

Were you guys asleep?? They killed and fed you a member of your own group and held the rest of you in a torture chamber and you let them live?!?!?!

I guess I am going to have to rock the impending apocalypse solo then.. weak.

237 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • It is important to note that disposing of the cannibalistic family was not something I did out of vengeance or to inflict undue suffering on them. I did it to dispense justice and remove a clear and present danger to my group and other good/innocent survivors that may pass through.

  • I killed Danny out of anger and horror, then regretted it. By the time I got to Andy and punched him around a bit, I was apparently emotionally spent and opted to let him live. In retrospect I think I put more blame on Brenda, really -- her boys were just trying to be good sons and let nothing go to waste, like momma always said. :)

  • @zipp said: I tryed to be nice but it seemed like killing Larry was a good idea. Hes an ass hole and he was possibly dead. I also killed the 2 brothers because they were gonna kill us and top it off with having use for desert.

    This was WAY more emotional than I thought this game would deliver. I literally almost cried...

    I love you telltale. The wait was a little to long but loved the episode.

    Anyone else kill Larry and the 2 brothers?



    I did, killed both and Larry, I didn't even give Larry Food at the beginning since I am still pissed at him for knocking me out in ep1.

    I think this game going to be awesome can't wait for more

  • Killing a helpless man stuck in a bear trap with a pitchfork? Not happening. The only thing that could've prompted me to go that psychotic was if they'd hurt Clementine. If that ever happens, all bets are off.

    Left the other brother alive as well. The guy was already beaten and was no longer an immediate threat. You've got the entire group watching you and you're a convicted murderer. If the truth about Lee's past ever comes out (and it will), it'd likely set the group at ease knowing from experience you're not a coldblooded murderer, so I think its the smart play in the long run, too.

    I basically feel like all of my actions revolve around the concept of "what's best for Clementine?" She represents the good that's left in the world and why it's worth saving. I'm not about to subject her to more horror through my actions.

  • I'm at loss at how these men (+mother) could be allowed to go. We know they've killed at least one person (Mark) by brutally removing his legs. That in itself was enough, but evidence obviously suggests they've killed a lot more (and have admitted as much).

    Why would you even leave to chance that they could escape the zombies (which requires hindsight, btw, so should not have been relevant in your decision-making at the time) and continue after you've left (or even try to hunt you down)? They certainly have shown no remorse whatsoever -- Danny, in fact, has an entire philosophy / justification for it. He's zealous about it.

    Also, leaving them to be eaten is just sadistic -- I suppose there's some poetic justice in it, but I am reminded of a quote:
    "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
    I think killing them is closest to justice that the characters in the Walking Dead world can achieve -- there are no prisons or courts anymore. Albeit, the pitchfork and the fence would not have been what I would have picked, but I guess you have to allow some leeway for dramatic effect.

    And child or no, there's really no reason to shelter Clementine. I don't understand what one would hoping to protect -- Lee's image as a father-figure? I think one would be doing her a disservice (and possibly a danger) to keep her ignorant rather than try to educate her about the world as-it-is. Lee and / or the other survivors will likely not be around forever.

  • Your very quote is Lee's mentality with the pitchfork in the hay. He wont become a monster even in this new world.

  • @CapnJay said: Your very quote is Lee's mentality with the pitchfork in the hay. He wont become a monster even in this new world.



    I assume you mean if Lee spares Danny? The quote was in reference to preferring others suffer vs. a quick death, but to address the point in your context:

    There is no law enforement, no courts, no government. Survivors will have to band together in order to rebuild society.

    If there was a better choice to serve justice, I'm all ears.

    I understand the conventional belief is mercy = right, but that belief requires a functional civilization. Mercy in this case is letting confirmed killer(s) loose upon the world.

    By sparing them, you are risking they commit further crimes. It may not be the place of men to judge other men or to take their lives into our hands (or their free will) and, indeed -- that is a problem that we face on a daily basis, but it is a problem that must be faced in order to have society as we know it.

    They say Lady Justice is blind, but I'm partial to the interpretation that she is peeking--because true objectivity is not in the grasp of mere mortals.

    There is no law enforcement to stop these men (and mother). Would you loose them upon the world were there not a zombie apocalypse or would you turn them over to the authorities? What happens when there are no authorities, no society from which to achieve a consensus or judgement?

    Do we trust in a higher power to make it right?

    We can argue that life and death is not in the pervue of men, but God or karma or some other force -- but I am afraid I'm not interested in a religious or metaphysical debate, so I'll just have to politely disagree.

  • It really comes down to Hope.

    If you believe the world has completely ended and it's time for a new dark ages then kill them.

    If you believe that we can rebuild the world from this disaster and that one day things will get back to normal with barbecues and birthday parties then you should spare him

  • @macil said: And child or no, there's really no reason to shelter Clementine. I don't understand what one would hoping to protect -- Lee's image as a father-figure? I think one would be doing her a disservice (and possibly a danger) to keep her ignorant rather than try to educate her about the world as-it-is. Lee and / or the other survivors will likely not be around forever.



    We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. Clementine's already seen horrific stuff and the world's clearly gone to hell, so I understand where you're coming from saying she'll have to learn to cope with the new status quo. She's already living in fear enough as it is without looking at Lee as just another monster in a world of them, though.

    I don't play Lee as someone trying to delude Clementine into believing things are better than they are (she's too smart for that), but what's the point of saving the human race if you sacrifice your humanity in the process? Your Nietzsche quote essentially sums up the rationale behind my choices.

  • @Boondock Saint said: We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. Clementine's already seen horrific stuff and the world's clearly gone to hell, so I understand where you're coming from saying she'll have to learn to cope with the new status quo. She's already living in fear enough as it is without looking at Lee as just another monster in a world of them, though.

    I don't play Lee as someone trying to delude Clementine into believing things are better than they are (she's too smart for that), but what's the point of saving the human race if you sacrifice your humanity in the process? Your Nietzsche quote essentially sums up the rationale behind my choices.



    Didn't Shepard say that to Illusive Man in ME3

Add Comment