User Avatar Image

Crawford Vs Ben (or Survival Vs Humanity)

posted by Ninnuendo on - last edited - Viewed by 419 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.

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

67 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • I went away and my cousin selected support Crawford/Save Ben

    I would have chosen Reject Crawford/Save Ben

    I hated the way Crawford ran things,I would only kick someone out if they were purposely getting people killed.

  • @cormoran said: 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.



    Lee would have actually headed to the [SPOILERS] Prison where Rick's group go to.He may have actually met Rick and the group of he survived aswell.

  • @Phoenix VII said: Remove Ben from the Crawford raid...just Ben, and everything would've went smoothly, that's what marks Ben as a liability, because his very presence drastically increases the possibility of a fatal problem occurring.



    I always wondered why everyone gave me weird looks for bringing Clem, but the idea of known screw-up tagging along didn't give anyone even a bit of a pause. Hey, let's bring the cowardly clutz with us on a stealth raid of murder town!

    ... Hey, bringing Clem -saved- someone; bringing Ben -killed- someone. I'm one up on the decision making there.

  • The notion of supporting Crawford is ironic because Lee more or less died trying to protect Clementine. Applying that type of philosophy exclusively to Ben's case is hypocritical, since the guys from Crawford believe they (kids) are a threat to a group's safety too.

  • reject crawford/save ben. I have read alot of these types of discussions and, have for the most part, tried too stay out of them. Morality is a subject which differs with the individual and to try too convince someone that your views are right and thier's are wrong is very hard, if not downright impossible. But I've finally decided to put my own opinions on the subject down and will not broach the subject further afterwards. Let me start with alot of peoples favorite punching bag, Ben. Its obvious the only reason this character was created was to test the morale values of each player. To push those values to the breaking point and then give you the opportunity to act upon them. I saved Ben and have no regrets doing so. Alot of blame has been laid on this character, and in some cases justifiably so, but his actions are just a contributing factor, a catalyst for the events that followed, and not the sole reason for all the tragic consequences that occured afterwards. Yes its true that Ben played a role in the deaths of Duck and Katjaa, but so did Lilly's persistence in remaining at the motel, or even more directly, Lee's neglect of his duty to protect Katjaa and Duck's retreat to the RV when he laid down his rifle to hug Clementine before she boarded, giving the walker the opportunity to attack them. Ben's deal with the bandits and failure to admit it was a factor in Carley's death but the blame there should fall with the person who committed the act Lilly, she lost all rationality after Carley said that she should stop acting the spoiled little girl and be more like Lee and in a fit of anger drew her gun and murdered her. Yes Ben played a role in alot of events like these, its what his character was created for, but the entire blame for the deaths that occured was not solely his. Everyones darling little Clementine's actions were indirectly responsible for the deaths of Lee, Kenny, and Ben, if you saved him, wheres the outcry for that? TT made Ben's character so incredibly, impossibly stupid that IMO it hurt the credibility of the game. Yes in the end I saved him because IMO it was the right thing, the human thing to do. I would not want to live in a world where humanity becomes an extinct concept. In a world like that your entire existence could be termed as walking dead. I write this, not in an effort to change anyones morale views but because I wanted to express my belief that no matter what world you live being human is not a sign of weakness.

  • @Ninnuendo said: 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



    I am strongly against Crawford and their philosophy, you don't condemn those who are at a disadvantage to death and save only those who meet your 'requirements', you help them -- if you start killing your own by forcing them to survive alone or simply terminating them just because they aren't like you, the only thing separating you from the walkers is that you chose to do it.

    Despite all the times Ben failed and messed up, I know he only wanted to do what was right. When he told me to let him go I couldn't do it because it goes against what I believe, I had to save him because I wanted to give him another chance to do something right. I also saved him because I feel that it was the right thing to do, nobody deserves to die like that even if they wanted to.

    Reject Crawford/Save Ben

  • I reject Crawford's way of life, but I also let Ben go. I don't think this is necessarily inconsistent.

    The way I saw it, Crawford was forcing people to do things against their will by way of the initiation of violence, or threat thereof, that resulted in harm and/or death.

    Ben, on the other hand, chose to let go--he made the choice to give up and conveyed a preference for death. Meanwhile, walkers were closing in on me and he wasn't even making an effort to save himself. So I dropped him.

    Setting aside how his actions are responsible for a lot of other death, and how he could not be trusted or relied on, that's why I did it.

  • No. I don't support Ayn Rand.

  • Then there's this black soul that supported the ways of the evil and dropped the good...

  • When I saved Ben, only 1 thought crossed my mind:


    "Fucking hell! I'm sick of all the idiots dying. FUCKING LIVE ASSHOLE"

Add Comment