User Avatar Image

Team Lily to the end (appreciation thread)

posted by YamiRaziel on - last edited - Viewed by 9K users

This topic contains Comic book spoilers. Read at your own risk

I guess I may be the only one here who would still support Lily if she shows up at some future point in time.
Why?
I appreciate her leadership skills, her selflessness (having to make all those little decisions is really difficult) and her reasoning. She tried to keep this group together, she did her very best but some other people...like Kenny always tried to have it their way, always consider what's only best for his family.
I think we all agree it was difficult giving the rations the first time in episode two. We got a glimpse of what she has to do every day. People hated us for those choices, so they hate her even more for having to do it every day. But there's no one else who would do it.

She was still pretty reasonable until Kenny murdered her father. People can complain that he saved them and all that crap... but you couldn't have known for sure and that's the truth. He overreacted and again being the selfish asshole he is, he did the easiest choice for him. Eliminate the enemy and undermine the leader's authority.

In episode 3 we see things haven't changed. Lily is still the only one to really tries to protect the group. Lee, of course, helps always and as much as he can, but others like Kenny... they didn't even feel bad for what they did in episode 2. Kenny ruined this group and yet he still wanted things to go his way. He kept pushing Lily without really doing anything for the group. He was determined to abandon all.
Carley... she didn't really do anything. She could've stepped in and helped Lily when she saw she was about to snap... but she didn't. The only thing she actually did was tease Lee, look cute, and avoid participation in almost every important discussion. The downfall in episode 3 is partially her fault as well.
When the bandits attacked the group it was again Lily that came to the rescue to a group that hated her. Kenny wouldn't swallow my disrespect for him and actually tried to get me killed too many times in this episode.
Ben... and Kenny really started a chain reaction. With both their stupidity combined they managed to indirectly kill Carley, Katjaa and Duck as well destroy the group from within.
Both cowards and both DUBM as a bag of hammers.
I would so love to see them gone in episode 4 & 5. I don't need stupid people in my group, people who know nothing about responsibility or humanity.


It was sad to see Lily snap but I guess there is a line as to where a person can take it. In the end of the day I'm sure she'll regret her choices and will eventually learn from them. She kills Lorry cause she believes they are threatening her group. When she sees how wrong she was she offs the Governor. That's a pretty redeeming deed in my book, one that clearly shows she actually develops.

I would certainly love to see more of her in future episodes/seasons.

So, am I the only one? :D Even if I am, I will still be defending this position to the end :P

695 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Mark$man said: Doesn't mean you pull a gun on them! She put a vote to who would stay or not, and she was hypocritical to try to kill him anyway. And in Lilly's case, she tried to kill Carley with no evidence, and it was proved she was innocent

    And Kenny does pretty much the same thing with Ben the very next episode at Crawford when he wants Lee to drop Ben (Kenny'll also basically admit that he would have dropped Ben had he been making the call). Hell, that's even a case where the vote can theoretically end up being to keep Ben if you bring Clementine: She votes to keep Ben, Lee can vote to keep Ben, Christa will abstain if Clem's there, with Kenny being the obvious "no" vote. Nevermind the case with Larry if Lee opts to help Lilly try and save him, in that case it's effectively a majority decision to make the attempt and Kenny overrides it anyway.

    Really, the choice between Lilly and Kenny really is yet another one that boils down to whether you want your poo sandwich on wheat or whole grain.

  • @Mornai said: That's hardly evidence, it's just assumptions and theories. Now, if the group happened to find some fingerprinting tool-kits or witnesses, then it's a different story...

    Maybe one of the group could have been an expert con-man, and waited so long solely to build up trust from the other survivors. Making everyone think you are the least likely candidate creates a perfect opportunity to commit the crime. Unlikely, but could have been possible. People do worse things in the zombie apocalypse.

    Ben's apology could have been seen as him apologizing for doing a crappy job on watch and not killing the bandits before they got inside the inn. That IS the purpose of the watch. Since he states that he's deathly afraid of Lilly, it adds up.

    First, it's "no evidence", then "hardly evidence". That's shifting the goal posts.

    Likewise, by that standard, "Maybe" the sun won't come up tomorrow or gravity will stop doing its thing after I post this because... pickles. Prior trends are evidence. None of the original group members apparently stole anything during the previous time of plenty either (and that was almost certainly a bigger haul, I highly doubt there was enough in the station wagon to keep the group going for three months, afterall).

    People tend to forget that even in a modern court of law, the standard is "reasonable doubt" not "all doubt"; stuff like fingerprints tend to actually be pretty rare. It's ridiculous to hold a group of post-apocalyptic survivors to a higher standard than we hold a modern court with all the bells and whistles. People have been convicted with less evidence than what we had against Ben. I wasn't the only one who predicted that Ben was guilty, and the fact that people were able to accurately predict it was Ben is a pretty good indicator there was evidence against him.

  • I suppose it's based on what an individual perceives as evidence. I know nothing of the modern court system and don't claim to, but regardless of how it works in real life i personally see evidence as physical explanations that prove without a doubt who did what(like security camera footage, for example). In that regard, there was no evidence to indict Ben.

    There was also nothing to support the idea that Lilly was willing and able to shoot a member of the group dead(with the sole exception being Kenny), and they were with her for three months, as well. Anyone can change.

  • @Mornai said: I suppose it's based on what an individual perceives as evidence. I know nothing of the modern court system and don't claim to, but regardless of how it works in real life i personally see evidence as physical explanations that prove without a doubt who did what(like security camera footage, for example). In that regard, there was no evidence to indict Ben.

    There was also nothing to support the idea that Lilly was willing and able to shoot a member of the group dead(with the sole exception being Kenny), and they were with her for three months, as well. Anyone can change.

    Which is an unrealistic and unreasonable standard; by that criteria even an eyewitness wouldn't qualify, nor would a confession, pretty much nothing would. Hell, even your own chosen example of fingerprints wouldn't in this case (or any): afterall, somebody could've planted those fingerprints or deliberately fudged the test - at best, it'd only prove Ben touched the stuff, not that he actually stole it.

    There is always a margin of error (however small) when trying to determine what occurred during an event in the past. By definition, that leaves a non-zero amount of doubt in any circumstance. There's a reason the standard is "reasonable doubt", not "all doubt".

    By necessity, the harsh reality is that in a post-apocalyptic scenario, justice would become a lot more fast and loose. It's not like today where if somebody steals your food or medicine you can just take a trip to the grocery store or call the pharmacy to request a refill. You can only expend so many man-hours on due process (a multi-month trial is right out). You can't really incarcerate the accused/guilty party for all that long since that's just going to be a non-productive person that's going to be a drain on resources...

  • It wasn't even close to the same. First off, Lilly killed a member of the group who was INNOCENT. Lilly didnt even kill the one responsible, and even I she did, it wasn't justified. What did Ben really cause by 'stealing supplies'? He gave Kenny enough time to fix up the rv, allowed the group to gain more supplies, and let everyone live longer. Had Lilly not shot up the bandits, a deal would have been made, and they could have snuck out in the middle of the night. Duck wouldn't have been bitten, Kat wouldn't have been injured, and Carley/Doug wouldn't have been shot. I blame Lilly's leadership for the deaths, not Ben.

    However, Kenny could blame him for his family's demise. Also for Doug/Carley incident. He was allowed to be mega pissed, he just found out that a kid who was screwing up everything was the culprit. He directly tried to attack Ben out of anger, unlike Lilly who killed like a coward. Kenny never tried again, and actually let people vote. Christa didn't want Ben in the group, and Brie didnt like him either. Kenny obviously didnt want him there. That leaves the vote between you, Clem, and Vernon. Even if you vote for Ben, it's still basically even. Kenny wanted you to kill him, he didnt try himself. He wanted you to drop him to save yourself(it was a risk to pull him up) to keep everyone safe, as Ben was a danger to the group. I can't say it was right, but it's a ZA. Anyway, I never dropped Ben. Kenny is pissed at that at first, but later he realizes it was wrong to want him dead. Lilly simply tried to justify murdering someone. When Kenny tried to kill him, Ben had admitted it directly to him, had been lying to him, and kept quiet about it all that time. Lilly's case was IMO at least 10x worse than if Kenny had in ep 4. But hey, that's just me.

  • @Rommel49 said: Which is an unrealistic and unreasonable standard; by that criteria even an eyewitness wouldn't qualify, nor would a confession, pretty much nothing would. Hell, even your own chosen example of fingerprints wouldn't in this case (or any): afterall, somebody could've planted those fingerprints or deliberately fudged the test - at best, it'd only prove Ben touched the stuff, not that he actually stole it.

    There is always a margin of error (however small) when trying to determine what occurred during an event in the past. By definition, that leaves a non-zero amount of doubt in any circumstance. There's a reason the standard is "reasonable doubt", not "all doubt".

    By necessity, the harsh reality is that in a post-apocalyptic scenario, justice would become a lot more fast and loose. It's not like today where if somebody steals your food or medicine you can just take a trip to the grocery store or call the pharmacy to request a refill. You can only expend so many man-hours on due process (a multi-month trial is right out). You can't really incarcerate the accused/guilty party for all that long since that's just going to be a non-productive person that's going to be a drain on resources...

    Be that as it may, your original suggestion of "Ben is guilty because he's the most recent addition to the group and he said I'm sorry" is not evidence in any sense of the word, so Lilly did not have anything to support her murder.

  • @Mornai said: Be that as it may, your original suggestion of "Ben is guilty because he's the most recent addition to the group and he said I'm sorry" is not evidence in any sense of the word, so Lilly did not have anything to support her murder.

    I agree. It could have meant anything. It could raise suspicion, but is in no way a confession

  • @Mark$man said: It wasn't even close to the same. First off, Lilly killed a member of the group who was INNOCENT. Lilly didnt even kill the one responsible, and even I she did, it wasn't justified. What did Ben really cause by 'stealing supplies'? He gave Kenny enough time to fix up the rv, allowed the group to gain more supplies, and let everyone live longer. Had Lilly not shot up the bandits, a deal would have been made, and they could have snuck out in the middle of the night. Duck wouldn't have been bitten, Kat wouldn't have been injured, and Carley/Doug wouldn't have been shot. I blame Lilly's leadership for the deaths, not Ben.

    In a given group, long-term; infections due to a lack of antibiotics would almost certainly kill more people than any other cause. It's the one good that can't be replaced. You can hunt for food, you can boil water. A wound gets infected? Pick a fungus, do some praying and hope it works (hint, it probably won't).

    And people tend to forget that the group had actually been holding off the bandits for weeks before they happened to stop attacking, Kenny says as much - hell, look at the wall during Lee's investigation. It's covered with arrows and bulletholes. We know they had been making runs into Macon during that time. All Ben's deal did was get the group to lower its guard... as evidenced by the fact Ben was the one on watch when the bandits were finally able to get in in the first place (he failed to notice an entire group of armed people approaching from an elevated position, Carley was able to spot the St. Johns from ground level).

    And you assume the raping, murdering bandits would've kept their end. Next thing they could've done before leaving was take Clementine as collateral.

    @Mark$man said: Be that as it may, your original suggestion of "Ben is guilty because he's the most recent addition to the group and he said I'm sorry" is not evidence in any sense of the word, so Lilly did not have anything to support her murder.

    And your standards for evidence are basically worthless - they're self-contradictory. What evidence do we have that gravity will keep doing what it's supposed to do, that the Earth will keep rotating? That a video will accurately record an event?

    More practically, why do you think repeat offenders get harsher sentences?

    Fact is, if one can accurately predict that Ben was guilty; it means there was evidence. Was it good evidence? That's more in doubt, but I never claimed it was good evidence. :p

  • Fair enough... as for the original point, i doubt Lilly had your evidence in mind. Her "evidence" was Ben panicking upon thinking he would be thrown out of the group, and begging to stay. Many will plead like that rather than be thrown into the streets to survive by themselves. She didn't say anything to back up her claims and her willingness to convict Carley and completely forget Ben's crimes if he agreed to do so shows that she either had no evidence or didn't care about it at all, she just wanted someone to take the blame. Even if it was there, Lilly was likely not using it and did not have it.

    At the end of the day Lilly was a witch and needs to be burned at the stake. :mad:

  • @Mornai said: Fair enough... as for the original point, i doubt Lilly had your evidence in mind. Her "evidence" was Ben panicking upon thinking he would be thrown out of the group, and begging to stay. Many will plead like that rather than be thrown into the streets to survive by themselves. She didn't say anything to back up her claims and her willingness to convict Carley and completely forget Ben's crimes if he agreed to do so shows that she either had no evidence or didn't care about it at all, she just wanted someone to take the blame. Even if it was there, Lilly was likely not using it and did not have it.

    At the end of the day Lilly was a witch and needs to be burned at the stake. :mad:

    A "witch" with a capital B :). I wouldn't exactly call it fair enough. Lilly had no evidence. And as for evidence, gravity to Ben situation are two completely different things. One of them is a THEORY, and the other is a GUESS.

Add Comment