Except that there ARE people in the show who act like this. Some of them are now dead, some are still with the group, but it's well within even the very specific TWD genre. At that point it was looking like series of bad decisions leads to everyone being trapped. Would you have trusted the current bad planning or take action? I think his actions were more realistic than some people might have expected, but still well within the bounds. Everyone doesn't have to get along sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya. If that is anyone's expectation, I would argue THEY are the ones who are mistaken.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
The Walking Dead
- Thread starter Ringlerun
- Start date
Except that there ARE people in the show who act like this. Some of them are now dead, some are still with the group, but it's well within even the very specific TWD genre. At that point it was looking like series of bad decisions leads to everyone being trapped. Would you have trusted the current bad planning or take action? I think his actions were more realistic than some people might have expected, but still well within the bounds. Everyone doesn't have to get along sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya. If that is anyone's expectation, I would argue THEY are the ones who are mistaken.
Mercutio01
First Post
No. He killed an innocent man in the most brutal and depraved fashion possible in that situation. That isn't "protecting [your] wife and kids." That's cold-blooded murder. That act is absolutely, unequivocally evil. You can rationalize it all you want. You can pull out John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism all you want. You just demonstrated to your kids that it is not only acceptable, but also preferable, to slaughter innocent people rather than work together to find a solution.
This isn't shooting someone who'd been bitten and leaving him as bait. This is literally cold-cocking a rational human and feeding him to zombies because he didn't agree with you.
You have become a despotic jerk who kills on a whim.
Is that something that would happen in a film (or in real life, for that matter)? Absolutely. But what happens if everyone acts the same way. How long before it is your turn to be sacrificed for zombie bait? If the rest of the group had been smart, they would have cold-cocked the OP right after he knocked out the other guy.
How do you know he saved the party? The party could have had another way out (I listed several different possible options way back in this thread) very easily.
He was just tired of talking about it and didn't want to wait for a group decision. There was no indication in the OP that there weren't any other options for the group - he took it upon himself to take charge and pound the guy into unconsciousness & toss him to the zombies.
When he didn't like it was when they went inside the diner against his wishes, and once inside the place he didn't want to be, he decided he wanted to be the leader of the group. When somebody wanted to come to a group decision instead of submitting to his absolute authority, he decided to stomp the guy and then toss him to the zombies.
That is pure murder, done in the name of assuming authority over others. Those who favor that path are often...infamous.
If you don't see any other way out and decide it becomes someone else or you, it could be a choice you make. In that moment things sound like they seemed to be one of 2 options in the character's mind, staying stuck in there and the zombies get them or throw them some bait to distract them.
Were there other options, probably, but in that character's mind he's doing what no one else will and doing it b/c he views staying there as signing their death warrants. By definition, if the zombies don't eat your kids through your actions, you protected them from the zombies. His character will have repercussions from the actions and that is as it should be.
Admittedly, the OP admits to no familiarity w/TWD specifically when it came to zombie fests. To go back to the super hero game, it would be like the GM saying we're playing 4 color and rather than see what the difference was between that and more modern comics, the player who has only read The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen makes an anti-hero.
I'm not disagreeing that some of his character action ideas, largely from his 2nd post in the thread, are against the specific sub-genre being discussed, but I think in a life and death situation someone might make the decision to throw someone to the wolves and the results of that would make for interesting gaming IMO.
Playing someone that no one trusts who maybe becomes more trustworthy over time is certainly within genre. Merl's brother never went as far as the OP's character did, but a lot of his opinions that made him more of an outsider early on have certainly softened over the course of the show.
Imagine if the group had all been federal prisoners in for life for murder. This would probably come up a lot more often. I've played in games where anti-player action wasn't off limits. Everyone knew what was going on and didn't get their feelings hurt. He didn't do it to anyone around the table tho. Was it murder, sure, but the other player's reactions to that will inform a lot of what happens in the rest of the game.
I'm working under the assumption that his character figures he saved everyone, which seems like a reasonable line of thought to me given the actions that construction worker has already taken.
There has been a vote of no confidence. He ended up being judge, jury and executioner, but he didn't think someone's leadership was working well and didn't think there was time for a discussion. He could have been right about that, we don't know. *shrug* I'm actually really curious to hear about what happens at the next session.
Also, the game did end after that, but we don't know if that was an early end to the game, which many people seem to be assuming or if they just got to their normal end time. I know if we're close to the normal time and we just finish a big scene we'll just call it there. I didn't read it as his actions were session-ending and was honestly kind of surprised so many people did.
For example, consider the case of the William Brown, which I've discussed several times on these boards as an example of the field of "Lifeboat Ethics"- this example below is a "D&D-ized" version of what happened I originally posted in a thread about paladins:
The differences between the William Brown and the zombie diner incident are several. In the case of the survivors of the William Brown:
1) There was already someone lawfully in command of the lifeboat.
2) He did not kill anyone for mere dissent. Those who were killed by being forced out of the boat were chosen for particular reasons- already dying, strong swimmer who might survive without the lifeboat...one supposedly even volunteered because he was elderly.
3) All other options had been explored, discussed and discarded.
In the diner situation- assuming all other options have been discarded- the lifeboat commander would not have acted as the PC did. At the very least, he would have first asked for a volunteer.
Finding none, he may have chosen someone- perhaps someone who might have a chance at evading the seemingly guaranteed doom, whatever.
But mugging a dissenter? Still not ethical.
Last edited:
Never said it was morally or ethically right, just that from a survival perspective, it worked. He's alive, zombies didn't eat him. For the record, my wife and I do a lot of yelling at the TV too. She read the entire comic series recently, but her biggest complaint is the kid playing Carl. My understanding is the story is drastically different, but the internal debate between succumbing to the newer, more violent world or holding onto your civilized roots is part of what makes the story so interesting.
OP, please fill us in on how this turns out at the 2nd session turns out.
Which brings us full circle- TWD (the show, at least) is NOT about mere survival, it's about the tension of survival while retaining some form of civilization; it's about not sliding into barbarism.
And to my eyes, everyone except the OP was hip to that, and his GM tried to help him out.
malcolypse
First Post
I don't think that's gonna happen. Neither the OP or Azyrl have posted anything here for more than 48 hours.
Also, the OP previously stated that he wasn't going to return to the game.
Actually I went back thru his posts and he said he would be talking to the GM again on Saturday and his OP had questioned if he would return, but he never said outright he was not going to return to that game.
Altho if RR and Azryl were Kermit and Piggy, then we won't be hearing from him for awhile indeed
Similar Threads
