Glenn, Daryl, and I guess, T Dawg and Andrea. Rick wouldn’t leave his family and Shane is just right out since he’d be willing to do whatever it took to save Carl and Lori, including killing everybody else. Also, his choice to use up all the flares at once is the reason he and Otis got surrounded by Walkers when they were leaving the school.
I don’t know much about T Dawg and Andrea is a bit trigger happy, but it would have to work.
Hmm. I suppose it might be safer for me to disengage after such a devastating rejoinder, but I think the point is an important aspect to explore in the discussion. There seem to be two different viewpoints forming about Shane, one generally accepting of his actions as necessary or justifiably expeditious, even if icky, and one view generally condemnatory. (If asterion objects or feels this is a distraction from the OP, I’m happy to start a different thread.)
So, noting the fearsome sophistication of L4L’s “ethics and principles equates to ‘trying to be a nice guy’” formulation, I’ll steel my nerve and wade into the fray.
To take into account your unique life experience, Lust4Life, I’ll accept without question that your participation as part of a highly trained unit facing life or death situations forms the basis of your opinion. I also suggest to you that my view, along with those of the other participants in the thread, is also informed by experiences outside of televised entertainment. (There are a number of participants in the thread besides you and I who I know to have military experience. But I will try at all times to maintain the appropriate level of respect for your special case.)
To illustrate how ethical considerations factor into day to day survival in life or death situations, I’d like to ask you an honest question about your [British?] military history, based on the following scenario:
Let’s imagine that at some point in your career in the elite force to which you were attached, you found yourself along with a single companion from a separate unit returning from a mission. Let’s say you were carrying information or material (we’ll call this a Macguffin) which could be instrumental in saving the life of one of your unit mates back at the field base to which you’re both returning.
Along the way you’ve encountered enemy forces which, in your judgement, it’s impossible for you both to elude working together, but from which one of you might escape with the Macguffin if the other were to serve as a distraction. This is complicated by two facts - first, the enemy is known by both of you to invariably and immediately torture and kill their captives, and second, your comrade refuses to leave you and has not volunteered himself for sacrifice.
First question: Do you shoot him and leave him to be tortured and killed, wresting the Macguffin from the confused and wounded soldier before leaving, or do you continue to work with him until you escape or one or both of you is captured?
Second question: If you shot and left your unfortunate partner, would you have reported the action to your fellows or superiors, and if your actions were otherwise made known, would there have been consequences involving military justice?
Now, I don’t know the answer to the first question, but it’s important to note that whatever your answer, if you justified it by anything other than a coin flip or other random selection, you employed a system of ethics to reach your decision. Doesn’t matter if it was so rudimentary as to be complete self interest, or if it were a complex mixture of adherence to military code, concern for your Macguffin deprived comrade and conscientious propitiation of the ancient deity Moloch.
Because ethics is not, in fact, the desire to be ‘nice’ but is the application of universal principles to situational needs through a process of interpretation and evaluation. It is impossible to apply any sort of belief to any sort of situation without employing a system of ethics.
Now, I know with full confidence the answer to my second question above. We all know that one, don’t we? There’s not an organized national military on the planet which would fail to treat the betrayal portrayed in the hypothetical as a breach of conduct. Such an act would, in most military systems, be tried as murder, and without massive extenuation would result in severe punishment.
Do we think this universal condemnation of the fuck-your-buddy battlefield technique is because all militaries of the world are softheaded organizations overly concerned with being ‘nice guys’? Or is it because they all believe such ethical considerations are vital to the continuing operation and maintenance of a military force?
We can explore other aspects of ethics in extreme circumstances, but I think this is enough for now, and doesn’t stray too far from the fictional universe of the Walking Dead franchise. It would be interesting to explore the inevitable consequences of Shane’s approach, but I’ll bet we see some sort of take from the writers in the second half of the season. I hope the OP will continue to indulge this sidetrack.
If we’re going to function as a group, I’d have to trust the people I’ve chosen. That rules out Shane (because I’d be worried about him if I so much as got the sniffles) and Dale (who would decide to hide our guns or break the camper if he thought it was best).
Darryl and Glenn are first picks. Do I have to pick another one? Can’t I just pick those two?
If so, then it would be T-Dogg and Andrea. T-Dogg because I don’t know enough about him to have anything against him. Andrea because she’s the best of those left. As mentioned, Rick wouldn’t leave Lori and Carl. Maggie could be a substitute for Andrea (and I may have to go that way if Glenn won’t leave without her), but I’m not sure she’ll leave Hershcel and crew.
Rick
Pros: Police training, some leadership ability, high concern for others.
Cons: Reluctance to act (seeks higher authority or further information despite being semi-capable of handling tough decisions). May be unwilling to leave Lori & Carl.
Lori
Pros: Cares deeply about those she loves, wants to do right.
Cons: Utterly ineffectual at doing anything for them, pregnant.
Carl
Pros: Has the bravery and obedience of a child soldier.
Cons: Has the strength and inexperience of a child.
Shane
Pros: Police training; unafraid to act. Usually can keep thinking in difficult situations.
Cons: Thoughts tend toward dangerous and selfish behavior. Prone to anger. Shows little loyalty even to those close to him, and much less to others.
Glenn
Pros: Willingness to help, resourceful and usually quick-thinking.
Cons: Has little initiative; can get in over his head.
Dale
Pros: Experience gives him the ability to make decisions and react; carries himself fairly well in combat.
Cons: Experience makes him unwilling to share his decisions with everyone else, physically weak with age.
Andrea
Pros: Seems a naturally gifted fighter.
Cons: Panics under stress. May be mentally unstable.
Carol
Pros: Has strong and resilient spirit.
Cons: No fighting ability; easily cowed by others.
Daryl
Pros: Pretty much kicks ass, and is willing to help others if he decides he wants to. Usually makes good choices.
Cons: Reacts poorly to authority or group decisions; may be tough to control.
“T-Dog”
Pros: Generally willing to help, physically fairly strong.
Cons: Lacks training (and sorely needs it); does not seem to be at his best in combat situations.
Hershel
Pros: Strong leader, medical training.
Cons: Holds delusions about zombies that make him a liability, not a fighter.
Maggie
Pros: Confident fighter, rational and intelligent.
Cons: Somewhat controlled by Hershel; has poor situational awareness and loses her cool in close combat.
other family/farm folks - ignored, appear to lack experience with outside world.
various vatos - ignored, possibly capable, but appear unwilling to form a team.
others left behind (Morgan et al.) - ignored, lack of evidence.
My picks:
Daryl and Rick are in - the best fighters that aren’t a problem for the group.
Next is probably Maggie.
I think the last one is either Glenn, T-Dog, or Dale. Glen I’d rather not have if he & Maggie are trouble. I wouldn’t mind Hershel if he were convinced of the danger; there’s hope that Maggie might know a bit about medicine just from being with him.
I choose Daryl, Rick, Maggie, and T-Dog.
I’m looking at the WL4D crew in a sort of D&D vein in terms of character classification;
Working off Panama Jack’s quick reviews of the character archetypes
Rick - Paladin
Pros: Police training, some leadership ability, high concern for others.
Cons: Reluctance to act (seeks higher authority or further information despite being semi-capable of handling tough decisions). May be unwilling to leave Lori & Carl.
Lori - meaningless cannon-fodder NPC peasant
Pros: Cares deeply about those she loves, wants to do right.
Cons: Utterly ineffectual at doing anything for them, pregnant.
Carl
Pros: Has the bravery and obedience of a child soldier.
Cons: Has the strength and inexperience of a child.
Shane**- Berserker**
Pros: Police training; unafraid to act. Usually can keep thinking in difficult situations.
Cons: Thoughts tend toward dangerous and selfish behavior. Prone to anger. Shows little loyalty even to those close to him, and much less to others.
Glenn - Magic-User/Thief
Pros: Willingness to help, resourceful and usually quick-thinking.
Cons: Has little initiative; can get in over his head.
Dale -Cleric
Pros: Experience gives him the ability to make decisions and react; carries himself fairly well in combat.
Cons: Experience makes him unwilling to share his decisions with everyone else, physically weak with age.
Andrea -Rogue
Pros: Seems a naturally gifted fighter.
Cons: Panics under stress. May be mentally unstable.
Carol meaningless cannon-fodder NPC peasant
Pros: Has strong and resilient spirit.
Cons: No fighting ability; easily cowed by others.
Daryl -Fighter/Knight
Pros: Pretty much kicks ass, and is willing to help others if he decides he wants to. Usually makes good choices.
Cons: Reacts poorly to authority or group decisions; may be tough to control.
“T-Dog” -Fighter
Pros: Generally willing to help, physically fairly strong.
Cons: Lacks training (and sorely needs it); does not seem to be at his best in combat situations.
Hershel -Monk
Pros: Strong leader, medical training.
Cons: Holds delusions about zombies that make him a liability, not a fighter.
Maggie Rogue
Pros: Confident fighter, rational and intelligent.
Cons: Somewhat controlled by Hershel; has poor situational awareness and loses her cool in close combat.
If I was one of the group, my three compatriots would be Daryl, Maggie, and Glenn
If I was choosing only from the group, I’d choose Daryl, Maggie, Glenn, and T-Dog
Daryl and T-Dog appear to work well as a team, even if they aren’t “freinds”, they have a good overall balance of talents, Maggie and Glen also have similarly complimentary talents
Shane is out due to his unpredictability and temper, yes he gets things done, but he is also a bit too close to the breaking point for my tastes, don’t want him waking up on the wrong side of the bedroll and killing off team members for some ill concieved delusional “reason”
Does he? I may be mis-remembering, but didn’t T-Dog assist with the firearms training?
Yes.
He seems pretty capable with the group; but in S2E1 he freaked out/panicked on the highway when the walkers came by (he may have been surprised and startled by their sudden appearance) and almost killed himself getting cut.
T-Dog seems like kind of an unknown at this point. His character just hasn’t been explored that much.
You forgot darn cute.
I’d take Daryl, Carol (team her with Daryl and I think they’d make a good, no-nonsense couple to have around), Andrea (good shooter) and Maggie (for me).
You certainly seem to have a lot of issues, which I think that I’ll leave for you to sort out for yourself.
Don’t call me I’m busy.
You quoted his whole post just to say that?
Gotta say, speaking as combat veteran, xeno’s making one hell of a better case for his position than you are for yours.
And you come across as pretty arrogant to just waltz in, and tell everyone they’re wrong and basically stupid.
A “Shane” in our military unit would’ve received either the quickest beat down and medevac or the quickest transfer to a non-combat support unit. Maybe one, then the other.
Spoke nailed it above. 28 Days Later indeed.
I quoted her whole post because I couldn’t be bothered to go though all of that verbiage on delete.
Hope thats alright with you now, if you have any other queries with my posting style, as opposed to my actual points, then do by all means take it up with someone who actually cares.
Actually I didn’t rate 28 Days Later very much, thought that it was badly written, and the story unbelievable.
As to your ex position as a tank driver, I don’t think that it really qualifies you overmuch for ground/hand to hand tactics whether against humans, zombies or teddy bears.
If you don’t like my attitude then feel free to ignore my posts, ie. don’t read them and don’t respond to them.
And now if you don’t actually have a point about the TWD to make to me, I’ll wish you a fond farewell.
I promise that you won’t hurt my feelings by doing so.
Well, aren’t you just a pleasant person to have a conversation with.
Bless your heart.
Regardless of your movie critique, there was a military unit that set themselves up in house, abducting people for sex slavery and whatever usefull bits they had on them, because it was “situationally expedient” for them to do so. They had the guns, and it was in there immediate interests to become Honey Badger.
And Honey Badger doesn’t Give A Shit.
Gunner. Trigger man. And when I went through basic training, everyone received basic infantry fire-and-maneuver training. But that’s besides the point; the service-weapon for American tankers is pistol, for which I’m fairly proficient with to this day (range time is cheap).
All too easy. Buh-bye!
Doubly besides the point, since the the locus of disagreement here isn’t small unit tactics, but team building and military esprit de corps. Which is something that, I would imagine, is equally important whether you’re in the ground infantry, part of a tank crew, or swabbing the deck of an aircraft carrier.
And, of course, military training usually involves a huge amount of ethical instruction, although I guess it’s not really phrased that way in boot camp. But “Never leave a man behind,” is purely an ethical position. The idea that you can depend, absolutely, on your team mates, and that you must be absolutely dependable to them, is an ethical system, and (as I understand it) one of the first things they try to impress upon new recruits.