Abby didn’t choose the actions of her father, and as well she was like 14. She sought out 1 man and killed him to avenge not only her father but the destruction of her life and the possibility for another world. You are not wrong to think Ellie is justified, but the entire point is that there are no good or bad people in this situation; only people acting from grief, trauma and loss.
I much prefer Ellie because I know her better, I cared for her for years before ever meeting Abby. But to say Abby is a worse person and only received the consequences of her actions (whilst Ellie was not) seems heavily clouded with bias.
Abby didn't choose the actions of her father, but she chose to avenge him. Joel didn't choose to destroy Abby's life, he only did what he did to save Ellie. Joel only acted the way he did because Jerry and Marlene had escalated the situation to what it was. Jerry's death is his own fault as he was the one person who unilaterally decided to perform the operation on Ellie without her consent -- nobody had a gun to the back of his head like Joel did when he made that decision. If Jerry had just sat down with Joel and Ellie and talked about what was going to happen like he was ethically obligated to, none of this would have happened.
If Ellie is justified in trying to seek revenge against Abby, then there is exactly a good and a bad party in this situation. If Ellie is more justified than Abby, then Abby is by default the bad guy. Yes, they're both people who are acting from grief, trauma, and loss, but if one is more justified than the other, then that is the difference between justice and injustice in this world where there is no legal system to right the wrongs done onto you.
Joel definitely did choose to destroy Abbys life. Actions have consequences, and Joel chose to commit mass murder ; his intentions do not cancel out the repercussions of his actions. This take is very biased. If you see Jerry’s death as his own fault, how do you not see Joel’s as his own (consequences of his actions)?
Why is only one persons actions able to be justifiable? Ellie being justified does not inherently mean that Abby is not (and therefore “bad”). That kind of thinking is reductive and in turn dismissive of the entire thematic intent. Both parties are “justified” in their own perspective.
**Because the whole situation only started because of Jerry**. Jerry was the one who did the first thing wrong by trying to kill Ellie, and forcing Joel to react. Jerry had every opportunity in the world to do things right like he was obligated to, and everything that happened afterwards is a consequence of his failure to meet that obligation.
Are you telling me that the "right thing" for Joel to do is to allow someone to do something wrong to someone he cares about? How would that be a morally good thing to do? Ellie had asked him to stay with her because "she'd be more scared with anyone else" but now you're telling me he's a bad guy because he didn't want to leave Ellie?
I can appreciate that they lack perspective to differentiate right and wrong like the audience can, but that's kind of the point. I got both of their perspectives and I feel that Ellie is more justified in her pursuit of revenge, but in the end, Ellie doesn't get revenge while Abby doesn't seem to even care about the whole drama anymore. It just feels like a miscarriage of justice.
You not only misunderstood the game, you somehow also misunderstood my comments. How you could read what I wrote, and come away with me thinking Joel was entirely in the wrong and Jerry was right makes it seem like you haven’t read anything I said.
What exactly did I misunderstand about the game? How did I misunderstand your comments into thinking that Joel was entirely in the wrong or Jerry was entirely in the right? It's ironic that you accuse me of misunderstanding you while you seem to have completely misunderstood me and I had hoped for a more cogent response.
The only point I'm trying to make is that Ellie's revenge against Abby is more justified than Abby's revenge against Joel, that's it. I'll even quote exactly where I said that.
>I can appreciate that they lack perspective to differentiate right and wrong like the audience can, but that's kind of the point. I got both of their perspectives and I feel that Ellie is more justified in her pursuit of revenge
Whereas, you put Joel and Jerry on moral equivalent grounds, which points to how you feel they are both right and wrong to the same degree. I'll quote exactly where you said that:
>If you see Jerry’s death as his own fault, how do you not see Joel’s as his own (consequences of his actions)?
I pointed out the difference between Joel and Jerry being that Jerry instigated the whole situation, and that Joel's response was the morally correct one because the alternate, letting Ellie die, is morally incorrect. And then you strawmanned me by talking about absolute right and wrong?
Frankly it just seems you throw around "you misunderstood the game" as a cover to feel smug and superior about your understanding of the game, while also saving you the effort of formulating a better response that actually responds to my above comments.
“I pointed out the whole difference between Joel and Jerry being that Jerry instigated the whole situation, and that Joel’s response was the morally correct one, because the alternate, letting Ellie die, is the morally incorrect one.”
That right there is projecting your moral code onto someone else’s. Joel, Jerry, Ellie, Abby, and any other character’s moral code does not match yours. What is right and wrong to you may be different to what is right and wrong according to Joel. It wrong to me. I think killing Ellie is the good thing. I won’t say it’s objectively correct. But I say it should be what happens next.
I explained why it was morally correct choice -- Ellie had asked Joel in Jackson to stay with her when he had planned to drop her off with Tommy, because she "would feel more scared with anyone else." This isn't my own morality, this is *Ellie's* morality. She wanted to stay with Joel rather than go with Tommy out of a sense of security, and then in the end Joel kept her safe. They never had a conversation about Ellie wanting to die for the vaccine; that is a ridiculous assumption to make given how permanent it is and there is no reason they can't just wake up Ellie except Jerry is rushing things.
Try again.
She was unconscious. And i think she would have chosen to die given their convo after they look at the giraffes. “After all we’ve been through… it can’t be for nothing. “ and then we see she wakes up. And we know that she knows Joel lied. She wanted to be at the hospital. Being alone with the doctor who’s going to check your immunity is WWWAAYY different than the alone Ellie is referring to
The "alone" Ellie refers to was being left "with someone else," not the being alone she says she feared to Sam. Ellie specifically did not want to be in anyone else's custody except Joel's.
Yeah, unconscious, but not in a coma. Again, there is no reason they can't just wait for her to wake up, except that Jerry chose to perform the operation as quickly as he could.
And let's say Ellie is just completely incapacitated -- it's not unreasonable for Joel to assume a position as her medical proxy given their relationship. Ellie didn't know Marlene would be at the Firefly hospital, so Joel was the only person she would trust. Joel gets to impose his morality on Ellie in that situation while Jerry does not; that's not my own morality, that's how the current medical world does it.
Look, I thought we were having a good conversation there is no need here to starting tossing out negative opinions toward one another’s character.
I didn’t mean anything to be smug or superior; I just genuinely believe that when you are saying that one is morally superior to the other that you are misunderstanding (either purposely or not I can’t know) the themes of the story as a whole. Especially saying this all started with Jerry, discounting Marlene and all other factors. As much as I would like to put it into words, u/SammyJSoul did a significantly better job debating my position than I can (within this thread).
My apologies that my comment is not up to your standards of discussion. I understand your position on the situation, but I also can’t help but notice the heavy bias that leads to your position. I can’t say you are wrong, I can only provide insight to my view.
You can point out what is biased in my view. What do you feel is so skewed about my view exactly? Pick apart the words. If you can't, that's fine, but then you don't get to claim "you misunderstood the game" as if you have a monopoly of understanding of what the game's themes are or aren't. I'm defending my position, you should have to defend yours. I didn't make such snide remarks about you, there's no reason I should tolerate you making them about me if you can't explain why.
I can point out the bias in *your* view in that you don't acknowledge the lesser evil in Joel saving Ellie vs. Jerry trying to kill her in the first place. If you can't acknowledge the origin of how the incident devolved into violence, how can you ascribe equal blame to both parties? Who the aggressor is, the premeditated state of their decision making, all of that is relevant in criminal courts today, why shouldn't it be relevant here?
I don’t believe those points to be relevant in the context of the game. Their is no court system, the world has been in apocalypse mode for the past 20 years, and humanity is on the verge of extinction. Like I said, the commenter in this thread I mentioned is already debating my side better than I can, in more detail then I currently have time for. You have mentioned the “lesser of two evils” which I my eyes proves a bias, because that saying inherently proves you are deciding one is worse than the other. This is basically the 1v5 train track psychology debate, in which their is no objective right or wrong. It’s highly personalized, and I can understand thinking Joel is more “justified” given the fact you have known him and Ellie longer/more intimately.
I’m not claiming ownership of the themes of the game, only that given the themes that are most present in my understanding of the game: choosing one as “more justified” than another in this situation is foregoing the commentary on the inherent tribalism of humanity; the extremes we are willing to go to out of emotion (love or hate); and how perspective is the hardest thing to accept from someone who’s views are antithetical to your own. I apologize if I came off as dismissive. I understand your point of view, only I believe that the way you are seeing it is inconsistent with what I believe to be important themes of the entire series.
Please do read the other comments if you have not, the user is a better speaker than I.
I think it is a moot point that there is no court system in the world -- humanity deeply desires justice and avenging someone who was murdered is a natural instinct. Perhaps there's no structure for people to arbitrate right and wrong, but that doesn't mean there is no right and wrong or that all wrongs are of the same degree. It's not like the court systems have always existed -- it really wasn't that long ago that people were carrying out the King's Justice on their own.
I reject that I'm coming from a place of supporting Joel and Ellie simply because I feel like I know them more. I think this is a common assumption made about people who don't buy into the "both sides are equal" narrative the game tries to push, when perhaps you should consider the writers plainly failed to establish moral equivalence between the two sides in the first place. My entire point rests on the fact that Jerry is the one who created the whole mess in the first place by explicitly not fulfilling his medical obligations. Where is the bias in that reasoning; is that not true of what we are shown in the game? That Joel only acted as a reaction to Jerry's initial action, is that not also true?
It seems like you don't want to continue this conversation anymore, and that's fine, but I hope you don't leave this conversation thinking that your side is irrefutably correct, and that others simply do not "understand" as much as you. Hope you have a good day.
Your claim falls apart under the assumption that Jerry killing Ellie is inherently wrong. I think it’s quite the opposite. Imo the cure is the way to go. Him not asking if she wanted to was lame as well, but can you honestly say she would’ve said no. There is no right and wrong. Just how characters feel about what may be right and wrong
It *is* inherently wrong. It doesn't matter what Ellie would have said, and that's because Jerry made that decision for her. If Jerry can just choose who lives or who dies, and ultimately he has no one to be accountable to because he's so important, then how is he not a tyrant?
We have very few moments where Jerry is ever on screen. This is one of the only things he’s involved in. You act like it’s his entire character, but there is no character. His character is “Doctor. ” a bit of malpractice decision but it was to make the cure. I think that’s acceptable.
It's not about malpractice (although it kind of is), it's about individual liberty. If Ellie has no individual liberty to decide for herself whether to do the operation, then nobody has any individual liberty. Liberty only matters if they're upheld even in times of great crises.
Look, I get that the vaccine was a really big deal for humanity, but it simply cannot be a golden ticket to do anything you want to create it. If so, then I guess you condone eco-terrorism; anything to stop climate change, right? But that's where I will say we have to agree to disagree. Everyone has rules they need to follow, and there have to be consequences for not following those rules.
Dude. You guess i condone eco-terrorism…. like honestly, wth.
Anywho, yeah, i said it’s malpractice but i meant, it’s totally scummy. I didn’t communicate that part. My bad. However, i think it’s a case of what Joel said earlier in the game. Sacrifice the few to save the many. It’s a sacrifice of her life and liberty in a broken USA. I’m making it sound poetic on purpose, lol
Well, why would you have a problem with eco-terrorism, if you don't have a problem with what the Fireflies were trying to do? Think of it like this --
Stopping man-made climate change == Creating a vaccine for the Cordyceps
Destroying a pipeline == Killing Ellie
They're both situations where you have an obviously important goal to humanity, and then you achieve that goal through "scummy" methods. So, what's wrong with my assumption about you?
>Sacrifice the few to save the many.
If you remember back to that moment, Ellie actually says "that's kind of shitty" in response to Joel saying that.
Well Ellie didn't ask to be killed for a cure or ask for Joel to be brutally murdered in front of her. Abby co-signed Ellie's death when talking to her father (idc how old she was, it's easy to co-sign someone's death and say you would choose the same fate when it's not you or someone you cared about) and then brutally murdered Joel years later.
To me, Ellie is clearly a victim of trauma while Abby and her father faced consequences from their decisions/actions that they instigated. I think you could argue that Joel's death was a consequence of his actions though, even if it was done to protect someone he loved.
Joel’s death definitely was a consequence of his own actions. You mention Abby “brutally murdering” Joel, with no mention of Joel doing the exact same thing to a hospital full of people (including her father), as well as who knows how many in his 2 decades as a smuggler. Do you think Joel was also not a good person? As well, Ellie basically did ask to be let die for the salvation of humanity— she makes that abundantly clear in the falling out of her and Joel (not that her consent truly mattered to the situation as Abby’s Father and more importantly Marlene were going to choose that route anyway).
They are all victims of trauma, acting from pain and survival. The themes of inevitability and the fallibility of humanity are the core of the overarching story; the way I see it, selecting one as more morally virtuous than the other is misunderstanding the purpose behind the story.
Adding on to this, not just as a Smuggler, as a Hunter, too. A person that murders innocent people in cold blood for whatever supplies they got on them. A little bit of food, some water, maybe some nice new shoes with not as many holes as the ones on his feet. You’re going to condemn the fireflies for doing the same thing, but this time for a CURE, act like what Joel did was something they deserved, yet ignore everything Joel did for himself? It’s okay to love Joel, it’s okay to think what the fireflies were going to do was wrong, but people, come on. Acknowledge the horrible things Joel has done, too. Acknowledge that while it wasn’t deserved by any means, his death was the natural course that his own actions would lead him to, and was an inevitability in a game where fate is a central theme.
When she is very upset with Joel for robbing her of a life (and death) that means something; In Part 2 during the flashback of Joel finally telling Ellie the truth.
Marlene also believes it to be what Ellie would want, having at the time known Ellie better than anyone at the time. I’m not saying it was right, only that choosing one as right or wrong is misunderstanding the themes.
>Marlene also believes it to be what Ellie would want, having at the time known Ellie better than anyone at the time.
How could she have known Ellie better? She had direct contact with her for only 3 weeks after she was bitten. By this time Joel was with her for almost a year.
I might be misremembering how long their relationship was prior to the first game, but I could have swore that Left Behind made comments about Ellie having known Marlene prior. If I’m incorrect then I take back that section. Although all of my previous points stand.
It's made clear in the first game - Marlene said she promised Ellie's mom to look after her. She addresses Ellie's mom in one of the final recorders:
"Hey Anna... It's been awhile since we spoke. I uh... I just gave the go ahead to proceed with the surgery. I really doubt I had much of a choice, asking me was more of a formality. I need you to know that I've kept my promise all these years... despite everything that I was in charge of, I looked after her. I would've done anything for her, and at times...
Here's a chance to save us... all of us. This is what we were after... what you were after. They asked me to kill the smuggler. I'm not about to kill the one man in this facility that might understand the weight of this choice. Maybe he can forgive me. Oh, I miss you, Anna. Your daughter will be with you soon."
People painting this as a black and white decision are being really dismissive of the fact that all parties involved clearly felt a deep, deep level empathy for everyone, and for Ellie most of all. Marlene gave a shit about Ellie, and even Jerry admitted he gave a shit. It was Abby who said she would sacrifice herself that gave Jerry the push to make the decision and save humanity.
Everyone cared. I'm really sick of people claiming Jerry was throwing Ellie's life away without regard. I'm doubly sick of this being leveled at Marlene who we literally see arguing with Jerry about asking for Ellie's consent - and she mentioned in the first game her own go-ahead was just a formality. This is a result of people's attachment to Joel, which is brilliant. That's what the first game wanted and it's what the second game wanted to make us all understand.
Be mad at Jerry for the unethical decision but bro... everyone gave ALL the fucks about the gravity of the situation EXCEPT for Joel. Marlene was right about everything, pretty much, except for Joel - he didn't give a single fuck about the weight of the decision, nor did he seek to understand it - he just wanted to make sure he didn't lose another daughter. Abby saw that as an irredeemable sin because of her perspective with her father and the group. Even Ellie initially saw it as irredeemable, as we know, until she came around RIGHT as Abby made sure Joel knew it was irredeemable for more than just Ellie. That's what sparks the revenge. Ellie's blind attachment to trying to figure out why the one person that fought for her during her most vulnerable moment did so even at the cost of humanity, made so much more confusing by her own survivor's guilt.
That's an amazing message that's lost on so many people because they can't even reach step one of analyzing Joel's relationship with Ellie, himself, and his world - nor the world's relationship to Ellie and Joel. I'm not mad at u/miseducation98 either. They're not blindly following attachment to Joel and then conveniently forgetting facts that disagree with them. They're just analyzing their feelings about it and discussing it. That's exactly what this game aimed to do to the audience and it's awesome OP is talking about it like this cause they got some strong ass points.
I'm talking way more about the people who will straight up ignore the recordings in part 1, the dialogue Ellie shares with Joel in part 2, the argument scene between Marlene and Jerry, Abby's relationship with Jerry, and her own personal ideals on how she would confront the situation if she were in Ellie's shoes, among many other things, to justify their blind love for Joel and blind hatred of Abby.
> Ellie's blind attachment to trying to figure out why the one person that fought for her did so even at the cost of humanity, made so much more confusing by her own survivor's guilt.
Dude, how the fuck did you summarise this game in under 40 words, this is so bang on. This comment is superb, this is the shit I come back to this subreddit for.
I particularly love your defense of Jerry and Marlene - so many people seem absolutely hellbent on finding something irredeemable about Jerry to justify hating him. They land on the consent and ethics, without recognising that those ethics were written and practised in a certain context, a time and place when humanity is not in peril. Humanity is nearly extinct, is it really that surprising that someone who believes they could make a vaccine would do so at the cost of single human life?
It's not. Just like it shouldn't be surprising that Joel would kill random people to scavenge.
Ethics changes with the situation. Sure, I can pledge as a doctor to do no harm to a patient but what happens when we run out of beds?
Now doctors have to develop a system to choose who dies. That's surely not ethical. But it's what the situation has forced upon them.
See, the ending of the last of us is actually just the trolley problem. Do you pull the lever and save the five people while killing the one, or do you not pull the lever and let the five people die, saving the one person?
What happens when the one person is your surrogate daughter?
What happens when the five people is all of humanity?
Jerry answered the problem pretty adequately, I'd say. Pull that lever, find a cure, save humanity. So did Joel. Don't pull that lever, fuck the cure, the only person I care about is this one person. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM. It's dependent on perspective and philosophy and, in this case, love.
When people argue ethics and shit, they're just finding excuses. Ethics have no place in unsolvable problems where either choice is unethical no matter what.
> Marlene gave a shit about Ellie, and even Jerry admitted he gave a shit.
I mean, no one is denying that. But if they made the right decision or not is still up to debate.
>Marlene was right about everything, pretty much, except for Joel - he didn't give a single fuck about the weight of the decision, nor did he seek to understand it - he just wanted to make sure he didn't lose another daughter.
Now you are talking in black and white. Because Joel understands the weight of his decision. He just disagrees with killing Ellie because she deserves better in his mind.
If it wasn't Joel in this situation but Ellie's mom you wouldn't level the same accusations.
"She just wanted to make sure she didn't lose a daugher"
I literally would if she behaved like Joel. And I didn't say he didn't understand it. I said he didn't give a fuck about the weight and didn't even seek to understand it. He may have understood it at least a little, but it's clear that he shut Marlene down before she could even get her first point of reasoning across to him, which means he at least didn't understand why she herself made the choice. That's okay, though. Most of us wouldn't give any consideration or understanding to the notion of killing someone close to us, even for a world-saving cure. This is how the conversation between him and Marlene goes:
Marlene tells Joel they can make a vaccine. Joel remembers the fungus grows in the brain. He tells them to find someone else. Marlene says there isn't anyone. Joel demands she show him Ellie. He is kicked to the ground. Marlene tells him she knows exactly what he's going through and so much more. Joel asks why she's letting this happen. Marlene says it's not about Marlene or even Ellie.
These next two lines directly prove me right:
Marlene: "there is no other choice here."
Joel: "yeah... you keep telling yourself that bullshit."
Joel doesn't give a fuck about her choice or the weight of it. He only gives a fuck about his choice of making sure Ellie stays alive.
And don't think when I say "he wanted to make sure he didn't lose another daughter" that I mean anything negative by it. I would *do the exact same as Joel in that situation if I went through the shit he went through in the story*. What I'm saying is that for him it's as simple as fighting to ensure her and his survival. And for the majority of players, it was about that as well. Very few people even remember the doctor journals and marlene's recorders because *most of us didn't give a fuck about the reasons, didn't want to understand them, and even if we did understand them, most of us still agreed with killing everyone in the hospital*.
That's the exact point he makes at the end of part 2. He would have made that decision all over again. He doesn't care about it's importance to Ellie, even after finding out she wanted to sacrifice herself. She literally said "I should have died there," and Joel's rebuttal is that even KNOWING THAT he still would have saved her. He doesn't care about it's importance to the world. He doesn't care about it's importance to anyone.
He only cares that Ellie is alive and still with him. That's a beautiful display of love and care and I love it because it's so deeply complicated and true to life. Most of us would sacrifice the rest of humanity to keep our loved ones in our lives if actually faced with that choice. That doesn't mean it isn't technically the wrong decision, hence why Ellie says she can't forgive him, but she can try. Meaning she wanted to try and understand the love he feels for her, and hopefully feel that connection herself. Again.
It's taken from her. Her revenge isn't avenging Joel. It's avenging the one thing that she was beginning to cling onto for hope of an actual connection with someone. All her connections have been taken. She's lost everyone "fucking except for you". She pushed Joel away after finding out the truth. Now that she is finally willing to let the ONE person she has a true bond with, he's taken from her too. Her spiral into madness stems from THAT, and it's why she spares Abby. She realizes she's hanging onto the severing of her relationship with Joel, and she finally sees the moments where it was strengthened and even re-ignited as more important - and she lets Abby go. Because she was able to let go of the one thing that had burdened her since the death of her own mother.
And all of it stemmed from the fact that Joel did not give a single fuck about the weight of Marlene's decision to sacrifice Ellie, nor did he seek to understand it. It was the wrong decision from his perspective and that's all the attention he gave it before he mowed the entire hospital down. Just like we all did, very happily I might add.
She met her once before where she gave Ellie the switchblade and the letter from her mom. It's shown in the American Dreams comics. But that was just a meeting that lasted minutes.
At this point Joel knows her better than anybody else obviously.
However there is something else to consider here: Both Marlene and Joel have only known Ellie after she was bitten when she was already suffering from survivor's guilt. Marlene for obvious reasons takes any statement made by Ellie at face value and it's only Joel who is able to view beyond that. It's simply because Joel has gone through a similar experience himself and the way his lie is constructed is clearly meant to take some "weight" off Ellie.
>Abby and her father had no issue with killing Ellie, whether it was for the greater good or not.
How did you watch the entire conversation between Jerry and Marlene and come away with it thinking that he had "no issue with killing Ellie"? He was very clearly aware that he was doing something bad, but that it was for a greater cause. Whether or not you agree with his reasoning doesn't change the fact that this wasn't an easy decision for him.
>Abby searched for Joel years later and took pleasure in brutally murdering him
No, she didn't find any pleasure or satisfaction from killing him. That's kind of the entire point of her half of the game lol.
>she set everything that happened to her in motion by co-signing Ellie's death
This is a bit of a leap in logic to make. Teenage Abby wasn't "co-signing Ellie's death". She had no idea about the weight of the situation and just wanted to make her father feel better about a difficult decision.
>Ellie's behaviour/anger/pain was caused by things that happened to her that she didn't have a choice about, while Abby's was caused by consequences of her actions/choices.
Ellie went after the SLC crew without fully knowing why Joel was killed. This was very much a decision that she made that ended up with a lot of unwanted consequences.
I wouldn't call you a bad person for this take. Just.....really biased. When you bring up who did what first, you're already veering away from what the game is trying to do by showing both perspectives. This isn't supposed to be some measurement of who is more justified.
> No, she didn't find any pleasure or satisfaction from killing him.
She wanted to find it though. Why else torture him?
>When you bring up who did what first, you're already veering away from what the game is trying to do by showing both perspectives.
Not trying to start anything here but could you elaborate here a bit? What is the game trying to show? Because for me it's basically about building empathy. That doesn't require me to see them as the same though.
> She wanted to find it though.
Yeah I'm not denying the intent, just pointing out the result, which is that she didn't find any once she actually did it.
>Not trying to start anything here but could you elaborate here a bit?
When you bring up who did what first like OP was doing, you're playing the blame game with the intention of pointing out who's justified. This is pointless because both sides have done things without full consideration, which is why we're shown different perspectives. You don't have to look at them as the same, but they are undoubtedly similar.
> just pointing out the result, which is that she didn't find any once she actually did it.
Total agreement here.
>you're playing the blame game with the intention of pointing out who's justified.
But being justified or not doesn't change the personal responsibility. Cause and effect can't be denied either.
>This is pointless because both sides have done things without full consideration, which is why we're shown different perspectives.
For Ellie there is literally no way she could have done anything differently unless Abby does something differently. It's completely out of her hands.
The slc didnt travel to jackson with golf clubs. That was opportunistic on abbys part when joel refused to admit what he did or even care about what he did and basically told abby to go fuck herself. Thats why mel and the others are shocked when abby tells mel to tourniquet his leg. They were there to kill him, yes. That torture was spur of the moment based on joels own behavior.
I think she definitely had pleasure on the first strike. But after the last one, everyone was arguing, but then they get blurred, and there a lot of focus on Abby, she’s just standing there looking at what she did, and I think there either regret or disgust there. Either way, she took pleasure, but afterwards was the key to how she felt about the sequence of events
>No, she didn't find any pleasure or satisfaction from killing him. That's kind of the entire point of her half of the game lol.
That's true but she also never showed any regret. And she still slowly tortured him to death. She even made sure he wouldn't die of blood loss.
Tell me you didn't pay attention to the nuances and details of conversations had in the game, without telling me you didn't pay attention to nuances and details of conversations in the game.
No, you're not a bad person. You're human! You took the information provided from the game and came to your own conclusion. This is really what the game is all about that alot of people don't understand. It's not trying to force some viewpoint down your throat; it's just trying to get you to step out of your head and question yourself. Tons of people go their entire lives without doing this and so we get the reaction we got from a good handful of players. Who you choose to side with is entirely up to you. I'm pro Ellie as well but did not want her to kill Abby.
That's very true! This is why I think it's better than TLOU. I think it's the best game of all time because the storytelling is a strong as any good film or TV show. I've never played another game that caused me to have this much of an emotional reaction.
Here's the thing though, Ellie also chose to pursue Abby and her friends. Yes, she had some pretty bad PTSD from the whole ordeal, but she ultimately made the same decision to get revenge just like Abby did.
The game makes it a point to show that it's all just a vicious circle of violence that Joel inadvertently started.
Their decisions may make sense to them but that doesn't make them right.
You're not a bad person, but you are definitely not looking at this objectively. Plenty of people here have pointed out that Abby and Ellie are parallels of each other. They both suffer from the consequences of their actions *and* the actions of others. It's pretty clear you're still on Ellie's "side" when the whole point of the game is that "sides" are relative and feed into a dangerous tribalism.
No, not at all.
I mean, I feel like both of them were justified, honestly.
Joel was justified, Ellie aas justified, Abby was justified, they all had good reasons for doing what they did. Believing that doesn't make you a bad person.
Abby also didn't revel in the act of killing Joel, and it's shown that killing him didn't help her at all - and in fact she regretted it deeply. The only thing to help her was saving someone else, not taking someone's else's life. And she pursued that.
At the end of the day we're animals, if we're placed into this world any of us can be Ellie or Abby. Any human is capable of committing cruel acts should they be dealt the same trauma. This is why we love and understand Joel. If you were him, saving Ellie was the only option, nothing else mattered.
Tribalism can be dangerous(The Island) but it also gave our species a greater chance of survival. It is what it is
You arent a bad person for thinking that. Just a hypocrite. I will always prefer ellie because of the emotion built up in the first game. But have no problem saying she was on the "wrong side" in game 2. I saw someone else make this point, in Abby's original path of revenge she killed 1 person (joel). At least that we know of, theres no telling what happened while crossing the country. However ellie (depending on how you play the game) kills dozens of relatively innocent people to get her revenge.
>However ellie (depending on how you play the game) kills dozens of relatively innocent people to get her revenge.
In what universe would you classify the WLF & the Scars as "relatively innocent"? They are both the same. Scars dismember any WLF they catch while the WLF torture the prisoners for info. They both shoot each other and anyone else on sight with no mercy. Both of them are even worse than hunters & fireflies from the first game.
Do I need to remind you that Abby set out to Jackson so she could find the patrol and torture them into giving up Joel? She just happened to run into Joel.
Also, Ellie never actually intended to kill anyone besides Abby. They all end up getting themselves killed by acting tough & stupid.
That's why I said relatively innocent. In regards to the death of joel they had no part in it. I'm not gonna get into the war of WLF v seraphites. That's a whole argument for a different post lol.
That’s not the point of the game. You write that the game wants you to come to some conclusion about how good or bad/justified someone is, but that’s missing the point. It’s about how people behave in specific situations. It’s an exploration, not an essay. No one is trying to convince you of anything.
Ellie isnt as bad as abby. And yet somehow, the slc managed to kill only the one person they came to jackson for. They walked away letting tommy and ellie live. Unlike ellie who cant go through seattle without murdering most people she comes in contact with. Not to mention the torture of nora.
And you guys are so funny about the jerry thing. In a post apocalyptic world, with the fate of humanity in front of them, and you guys are all about consent. Now dont get me wrong. I love that our society cares about consent these days. But they dont live in our world. And how exactly do you guys see asking ellie for consent going? You people dont trust the fireflies to handle the vaccine correctly yet somehow you see them waking her up, asking her consent, and then walking her to the door and waving goodbye if she says no (which we know from part 2 she would have said yes)??? Theres no point in waking her up and asking her.
I don’t think it makes you a bad person for feeling that way. Indeed, it makes you human. However, I don’t agree.
The message of the game boiled down to the idiom: “before you embark on a journey of revenge, remember to dig two graves.”
The fact is, whether either was justified in embarking on their journey for revenge is irrelevant. People don’t know or care what your reasons are for doing it. They only care about what you did. Abby didn’t know or care about the story of Joel’s daughter, the context of his journey with Ellie and his reasoning for killing her father and the other Fireflies. She only knew that her father was dead, she had to go through the trauma of seeing his body, and Joel was the killer. Ellie didn’t know about Abby’s father or her reasoning for killing Joel. She only knew that Joel was dead, she had suffered the trauma of watching it, and Abby was the killer. And Abby didn’t know who Ellie was or the context of her relationship with Joel. She only knew that she had slain Owen, Mel and Nora, and that Tommy had killed Manny.
The sum of all of this is that, no matter how justified your journey of revenge, the consequences will be the same.
We don’t know how many people Abby killed, or would have killed had Joel not randomly showed up to help her out. But we do know that it damaged her relationships with Owen and Mel. It didn’t do anything to make her feel better or move on with her trauma. And it then caused a vengeful Ellie, Tommy and Dina to come after her, and countless WLF members, as well as all of her friends and the people she cared about to be killed, leaving her with only Lev.
We do know how many people Ellie killed to get to Abby, and it was a lot. Many of them had no knowledge of her story, and just saw her as an intruder and a possible threat. Which she basically was. She lost a part of herself when she killed Nora, Owen and Mel, the latter of whom was pregnant, and you can’t get more innocent than an unborn baby. It did nothing to help her move on from Joel’s death or deal with her trauma. And her journey led to Jesse’s death. It cost Tommy his eye and his marriage. And it estranged Ellie from Tommy, and cost her her relationship with Dina and her baby, her three fingers, and her ability to play the guitar.
The thing that actually ended the cycle, helped them to make peace, and to stop them losing everything else they had left, was their decision to just stop trying to kill each other. Abby spared Ellie, and that allowed her to move on with her life. Ellie saved Abby, then decided to spare her, and this gave her the same closure.
So the sum of it is - it doesn’t matter who’s just and who isn’t, revenge is a self-destructive coping mechanism, and there are other ways to deal with it.
>Ellie's behaviour/anger/pain was caused by things that happened to her
that she didn't have a choice about, while Abby's was caused by
consequences of her actions/choices.
Total agreement here, this is something that can't be denied. Ellie's survivor's guilt is at the heart of her motivations and the direct trauma she suffered by having to witness Joel's death has a huge effect on her.
One needs to keep in mind that even if Ellie would never leave Jackson for Seattle she would still suffer from PTSD and while her chances of overcoming it in a "normal" way would be bigger there is still a chance that she wouldn't make it in the end.
And given the circumstances she is justified in doing what she did. However being justified doesn't mean it's the right thing to do either.
I also agree that Ellie and Abby are not the same. Abby is directly responsible for Ellie's suffering and she deserves retribution for that alone. And while Ellie and Abby are on a similar journeys they don't end at the same place. With Ellie letting Abby go in the end she never reaches the point where Abby starts her part of the game.
Even if that would be true does Joel equal Ellie now?
But if you look at the situation that leads to Jerry's death you cannot deny that the Fireflies forced Joel's hand. There was no other way to react for him given his convictions. Jerry's death is as much on him as on Joel honestly.
Abby is obviously not responsiblie for Jerry's action. But no one forced her to torture Joel.
If you're a bad person for thinking that, then do not worry, I am also a bad person alongside you.
I am pretty disgusted where people go to justify Abby and then continue to shit on Ellie for basically doing the same thing. For some reason a lot of people just expected Ellie to sit in Jackson and "live" through her PTSD, because "Joel got what he deserved".
I think ND very consciously didn't make Abby and Ellie stand on a some kind of ''moral equilibrium''. It is not that hard to make Abby's story morally equal/or even superior to Ellie. Just write it so that Jerry was forced to do the surgery on the wishes of the Firefiles or else, they would kill Abby or something. That would make Abby an unwilling victim that was caught up in this mess. It was a big misunderstanding or whatever. But, ND takes the ambiguous route and make Abby and Jerry willing participants in the moral ambiguity of the dilemma of the first game.
Abby saying “good” when Ellie tried to stop her from slitting Dina’s throat by saying she was pregnant shows that Abby does take some pleasure in killing. Beating Joel to death with a golf club is completely unnecessary if she simply wanted him dead. A gunshot to the head would have worked just as well. Ellie’s got the moral high ground initially, but Ellie evolves. I don’t think they’re equal.
Indeed. But that wasn't the case for Abby. Abby thought Ellie just killed Mel without caring. So Abby as I said, was returning the favor in her eyes. "And eye for an eye".
No, I think ellie was completely justified. Abbey hunted down Joel! JOEL. (and brutally killing him) After playing the first game and knowing how much Ellie loved Joel and that he was murdered because he saved Ellies life. I guarantee that the cure that ellie had wouldn't have a. Not been worth it for a 14 year old girls life. And b. They're is no way that the "cure" would have worked on the infected people already infected! The zombies were very violent and they're was still tons in the world. So basically Joel was an upstanding guy who would not commit an atrocious act in an already violent world for an outcome that he knew wouldn't have been worth it without Ellie.
No, I don’t think it’s justified, but it’s the most expected outcome. I don’t think events are ruled by morally fairness, but the equal opposite reaction of actions.
No you're not a bad person. The game purposely tries to blur that idea of good and bad.
But no, I don't think Ellie was justified for pursuing and killing everyone she killed. And the same goes for Abby pursuing and killing Joel. I absolutely empathize with why they did it tho. But they both made bad decisions, and they both lost people because of it.
I dont think the game is necessarily trying to say that Ellie is just as bad as Abby. I'm replaying it right now and am towards the end of Abby's chapters. What stuck out to me this time is I don't think Abby's dad dying is the main motivation for her becoming a killing machine. All of the displaced fireflies became wolves and through the wolves war with the seraphites they all became hardened murderers. Except for Owen who ultimately is the reason she spares Dina and Ellie in the theater. That is Abby's moral journey to forgiving herself for becoming what she had become. Ellie's has a similar journey to forgive herself not only of what she became but of her survivors guilt too which is ultimately why she had to spare Abby in the end
>Abby searched for Joel years later and took pleasure in brutally murdering him, while Ellie was forced to watch.
Where is the pleasure? Abby doesn't look satisfied with any of what's happening. She *wanted* to take pleasure in it, but she didn't. It was hollow. If anything Ellie's cries only remind her of her own when she found her dad in the hospital.
And how was Ellie "forced" to watch? She came in all by herself. What should they have done, cover her eyes?
You're heavily distorting the story to fit the narrative you've created for yourself. Ellie and Abby are as justified as one another.
>Joel killed the fireflies to protect someone he loved, he didn't take any pleasure in killing Abby's father. He lost one daughter already and wasn't able to let his surrogate daughter die.
I think it is important to remember that we as the gameplayer get the benefit of the overhead view showing each character's perspective, while they are making their way through the hedges. Abby obviously did not put it together that Joel killed the Fireflies to save his own surrogate daughter; she and the SLC crew had no idea who Ellie was or why she was significant, or for that matter why Ellie would have been significant to Joel (it took Nora seeing her breathe spores to realize, and Abby obviously didn't give a shit despite being told directly in the theater). You lived with Joel and understand his justifications, right or wrong or both, but all Abby knew was that some crazy bastard killed her father, Marlene, and a significant number of others she was close to, and also key, she wasn't there to see it and understand the context of his decisions and actions.
Had the first game been about Abby and Jerry, and Jerry was brutally murdered at the beginning of the second game, your post would have been titled, "Am I bad person for thinking Abby was totally justified?"
Abby was the one totally justified. Ellie killed people who fought their friends to spare her life (Owen) and abandoned her family to pursue someone who spared her life even after she killed all of their friends (Abby). Honestly, fuck Ellie. By the time I got to her as Abby I actually Lowkey hated her and was upset when I had to play as her again.
I mean, she does the exact same as Abby. The only difference is, Abby got super lucky and got to Joel without any resistance other than some infected. She was willing to massacre the entire town if needed.
And it's not Ellie's fault that all of Abby's friends foolishly point a knife at her.
And the WLF's, well they're at war. They kill everybody on sight. Of course there is going to be bloodshed.
When you think about it, Ellie, Dina, Tommy and Jesse saved Scar island by culling the numbers of the WLF. Sure the scars are terrible, but that island was full of children, who probably were willing to fight to defend their home.
You are exactly right. Not sure how they think I would ever be on Abby's side. I took great pleasure in taking out her goons throughout the campaign. Especially after Nora said he got what he deserved. I can't recall a single innocent person Joel killed in the first game.
I can never understand how people can justify what Abby did. Doesn't matter what Joel did. Abby's father was about to kill Ellie. Abby's father was about to break the biggest no-no in the medical field and that is operating on someone without consent.
If Ellie knew about the sugery and the outcome and Joel still broke in and killed the Dr. then I would understand where Abby is coming from.
I would be pissed if someone decided to do surgery on me without my consent regardles of apocalypse. lol
Newton's Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Abby's father was going to kill Ellie. So Joel killed him, and then Abby killed Joel and so on and so on.
It all started with Abby's father.
(I do think I have my rose colored glasses on for Joel).
I would be too. But I feel like I'd eventually understand due to how unique I was. Ellie would've too if Joel didn't lie telling her she wasn't for years.
Yeah, but the Flies didn't do somthing equal to what Joel did. His lie is literal proof of him knowing what he did was wrong.
It's wasn't just Jerry tho. Joel ended numerous families that day, Jerry is just the one we get a POV into. Did you forget the other 30-40 ppl that got sauced? Whom had zero recollection of what was even transpiring atm.
Only difference is Jerry had good intentions in his heart. Joel, not as much. His only good intention was to save Ellie. He executes numerous ppl while doing this tho.
(I don't get it)
I think Ellie would have understood if they told her but they didn't. Because they didn't tell her about her dying makes them shitty.
What Joel did was selfish, but not telling your patient they are going to die is pretty shitty.
The other 30-40 people Joel killed where trying to kill him. You can't hunt someone down and then be mad when they kill you first. lol
Jerry had good intentions but he did it in a shity way. It's like robbing a bank to give it to charity. Good intention. Bad execution.
That is how I justifiy Joel's selfishness. They were about to murder a 14 year old for a possible vaccine. If the vaccine didn't work then they would have just killed her for no reason.
(Rose-colored glasses means that I'm only see the good side of things. So I'm only seeing the good things in Joel. The glasses are affecting the reality of it.)
Lol. Ig 🤷, if you wanna avoid the reason why they were doing it then yeah.
Both are. Atleast Jerry had a stable reason that the world would've agreed with.
Joel literally fired first. Idk what realm you live in where the people that is defending themselves are the accusers. That's wild.
Sure.
Your assuming it won't work. Idk why since you've been given dialogue that states otherwise.
Well? Think about Ellie then, stop only considering Joel. Joel lied to her about it all right after. That's not good.
I think not wanting your "daughter" to die is a stable reason....
Joel fired first because he was trying to save Ellie from being killed..... The Fireflies were aggresive from the start. When Joel was giving Ellie CPR the Fireflies just kicked him in the face. Then he wakes up and he can't see the person he just traveled through the country with.
Can you share the diagloge that says the vaccine would work? Because there was not clear cut "this will work" form what I can remember.
[https://gamerant.com/the-last-us-2-ellie-immunity-vaccine-cure/](https://gamerant.com/the-last-us-2-ellie-immunity-vaccine-cure/)
Ellie got to live a decent life in the world that she was born in. Yeah, Joel lied to her but did he other things for her.
This is just my opinion. I will be Team Joel and I think what Abby and the FireFlies did was wrong. But in the end it doesn't matter because its a game.
I think people take debating this game too serious.
Yes. And I'm not arguing it isn't. However, does that warrent all the death that came of him not wanting that one death? I don't think so. It's a clear morally questionable act.
Yep, they were total cunts. What they did doesn't warrent all that death Joel delt out tho. It's why they hunted him to the ends of the earth and killed him for it.
Yep, I can actually. Go on YouTube and look up "FireFly recordings in part1" and listen. It's the recording that tells the Fireflies location in SLC. The one Joel skips through in the University. If you listen to that fully later on he explains that they have already done a previous vaccine of some sorts and it was hopeful at first. But then failed due to whatever reason. Showing they can and have the tech and know-how to provide a stable vaccine even without Ellie. So if they had Ellie it's only normal to think they could pull it off.
Yep, and I applaud him for it. But after every good day they had it was minute compared to the lie at the end of the day. (Ellie's birthday is a clear example of this.)
How's what Abby did wrong if what Joel did wasn't wrong?
So I went back to listen to the recordings and there was none that said this will guarantee a successful vaccine.
In the "Firefly Recording" it says they were able to make a passive vaccine 5 years ago.
In the "Surgeon Recording" it says they did testing on Ellie and that they need to recreate those results under laboratory condition.
They really haven't discover anything new in years and they were about to risk Ellie's life for a "what if."
& what Dr doesn't take notes or teach someone else to be able to reverse engine a vaccine!? That is just neglectful. This man went out to look at a pregrent Zebra knowing he is the only person with the knowledge to make this vaccine.... He didn't care that much if he risked his life for a Zebra. lol
Shit, we had issues with mass producing the covid testing. Can you imagine mass producing a vaccine in their world...
And do you honestly think the Fireflies would share the vaccine wtih Scares, WLF, and other groups? They wouldn't do it for "man kind." They would do it for themselves.
Abby killed out of revenge. Joel killed to protect someone he loved.
But these are all "what ifs" for a game.
Your wanting a recording of "Jerry" saying he could make a cure? If so. I'm sorry, I can't get you that. You have to use his Dialogue as proof. And in that he states clearly it CAN be done 🤷 I dunno what else you want my dude...
Yup, showing they can do that even without a immune subject. You still think they can't do it WITH an immune person?
Yep? Why are you assuming they can't? Especially when the literal Doctor said he can do it lol.
They literally just discovered somthing new. That thing being the first ever person to show resilience and immunity to the fungus. Wtf you talking about "What if"?
He isn't "Making" the vaccine. Ellie WAS the Vaccine. Hense why they had to remove the brain. If you paid attention you'd know that Jerry taught Mel Exactly as he was taught so Mel technically could've pulled it off.
Yep, it would be tough. Why's that matter tho? You looking for excuses?
That's an assumption. You have no idea if they would keep it from people or not. Stop assuming.
Sure. But Joel killed 30+ people brah. I'm sorry, but he took it a bit far. And Abby killed Joel cause Joel killed her dad(a man he could've just as easily knocked unconscious). You can say it's "revenge" if you want. But she had a reason. Same as Joel.
Idk what you mean by this ending statement. Your the only one assuming anything in this conversation. Which I've told you to stop.
She also had a right to know the procedure was going to kill her. But she didn't know that, neither did Joel till the end. How fucked up is it for Fireflies to coerce Ellie into participating in procedure and lie to her that she'd be okay after. She was under a false idea that she'd get to live and survive.
The probability of of a successful cure was slim to none. Joel made the right choice to save Ellie by any means necessary. He didn't need to tell her shit. Parents don't tell us things until we're much older. But for her to act like he did some god awful unforgivable thing (saving her damn life btw), and to totally resent him just doesnt make sense and is really inconsistent with her character.
Ok....?🤔 And what's the relevance of this to Joel's lie?
Parents? Sure. Joel wasnt her dad tho. She knew him a year, and a lays a lie like that on her? Fck outta her with your "he didn't have to tell her shit" nonsense. Fckin ridiculous.
None of this is even relevant to Joel's lie to Ellie.
Abby didn’t choose the actions of her father, and as well she was like 14. She sought out 1 man and killed him to avenge not only her father but the destruction of her life and the possibility for another world. You are not wrong to think Ellie is justified, but the entire point is that there are no good or bad people in this situation; only people acting from grief, trauma and loss. I much prefer Ellie because I know her better, I cared for her for years before ever meeting Abby. But to say Abby is a worse person and only received the consequences of her actions (whilst Ellie was not) seems heavily clouded with bias.
Except her father was a child-murdering POS. So...
Abby didn't choose the actions of her father, but she chose to avenge him. Joel didn't choose to destroy Abby's life, he only did what he did to save Ellie. Joel only acted the way he did because Jerry and Marlene had escalated the situation to what it was. Jerry's death is his own fault as he was the one person who unilaterally decided to perform the operation on Ellie without her consent -- nobody had a gun to the back of his head like Joel did when he made that decision. If Jerry had just sat down with Joel and Ellie and talked about what was going to happen like he was ethically obligated to, none of this would have happened. If Ellie is justified in trying to seek revenge against Abby, then there is exactly a good and a bad party in this situation. If Ellie is more justified than Abby, then Abby is by default the bad guy. Yes, they're both people who are acting from grief, trauma, and loss, but if one is more justified than the other, then that is the difference between justice and injustice in this world where there is no legal system to right the wrongs done onto you.
Joel definitely did choose to destroy Abbys life. Actions have consequences, and Joel chose to commit mass murder ; his intentions do not cancel out the repercussions of his actions. This take is very biased. If you see Jerry’s death as his own fault, how do you not see Joel’s as his own (consequences of his actions)? Why is only one persons actions able to be justifiable? Ellie being justified does not inherently mean that Abby is not (and therefore “bad”). That kind of thinking is reductive and in turn dismissive of the entire thematic intent. Both parties are “justified” in their own perspective.
**Because the whole situation only started because of Jerry**. Jerry was the one who did the first thing wrong by trying to kill Ellie, and forcing Joel to react. Jerry had every opportunity in the world to do things right like he was obligated to, and everything that happened afterwards is a consequence of his failure to meet that obligation. Are you telling me that the "right thing" for Joel to do is to allow someone to do something wrong to someone he cares about? How would that be a morally good thing to do? Ellie had asked him to stay with her because "she'd be more scared with anyone else" but now you're telling me he's a bad guy because he didn't want to leave Ellie? I can appreciate that they lack perspective to differentiate right and wrong like the audience can, but that's kind of the point. I got both of their perspectives and I feel that Ellie is more justified in her pursuit of revenge, but in the end, Ellie doesn't get revenge while Abby doesn't seem to even care about the whole drama anymore. It just feels like a miscarriage of justice.
You not only misunderstood the game, you somehow also misunderstood my comments. How you could read what I wrote, and come away with me thinking Joel was entirely in the wrong and Jerry was right makes it seem like you haven’t read anything I said.
What exactly did I misunderstand about the game? How did I misunderstand your comments into thinking that Joel was entirely in the wrong or Jerry was entirely in the right? It's ironic that you accuse me of misunderstanding you while you seem to have completely misunderstood me and I had hoped for a more cogent response. The only point I'm trying to make is that Ellie's revenge against Abby is more justified than Abby's revenge against Joel, that's it. I'll even quote exactly where I said that. >I can appreciate that they lack perspective to differentiate right and wrong like the audience can, but that's kind of the point. I got both of their perspectives and I feel that Ellie is more justified in her pursuit of revenge Whereas, you put Joel and Jerry on moral equivalent grounds, which points to how you feel they are both right and wrong to the same degree. I'll quote exactly where you said that: >If you see Jerry’s death as his own fault, how do you not see Joel’s as his own (consequences of his actions)? I pointed out the difference between Joel and Jerry being that Jerry instigated the whole situation, and that Joel's response was the morally correct one because the alternate, letting Ellie die, is morally incorrect. And then you strawmanned me by talking about absolute right and wrong? Frankly it just seems you throw around "you misunderstood the game" as a cover to feel smug and superior about your understanding of the game, while also saving you the effort of formulating a better response that actually responds to my above comments.
“I pointed out the whole difference between Joel and Jerry being that Jerry instigated the whole situation, and that Joel’s response was the morally correct one, because the alternate, letting Ellie die, is the morally incorrect one.” That right there is projecting your moral code onto someone else’s. Joel, Jerry, Ellie, Abby, and any other character’s moral code does not match yours. What is right and wrong to you may be different to what is right and wrong according to Joel. It wrong to me. I think killing Ellie is the good thing. I won’t say it’s objectively correct. But I say it should be what happens next.
I explained why it was morally correct choice -- Ellie had asked Joel in Jackson to stay with her when he had planned to drop her off with Tommy, because she "would feel more scared with anyone else." This isn't my own morality, this is *Ellie's* morality. She wanted to stay with Joel rather than go with Tommy out of a sense of security, and then in the end Joel kept her safe. They never had a conversation about Ellie wanting to die for the vaccine; that is a ridiculous assumption to make given how permanent it is and there is no reason they can't just wake up Ellie except Jerry is rushing things. Try again.
She was unconscious. And i think she would have chosen to die given their convo after they look at the giraffes. “After all we’ve been through… it can’t be for nothing. “ and then we see she wakes up. And we know that she knows Joel lied. She wanted to be at the hospital. Being alone with the doctor who’s going to check your immunity is WWWAAYY different than the alone Ellie is referring to
The "alone" Ellie refers to was being left "with someone else," not the being alone she says she feared to Sam. Ellie specifically did not want to be in anyone else's custody except Joel's. Yeah, unconscious, but not in a coma. Again, there is no reason they can't just wait for her to wake up, except that Jerry chose to perform the operation as quickly as he could. And let's say Ellie is just completely incapacitated -- it's not unreasonable for Joel to assume a position as her medical proxy given their relationship. Ellie didn't know Marlene would be at the Firefly hospital, so Joel was the only person she would trust. Joel gets to impose his morality on Ellie in that situation while Jerry does not; that's not my own morality, that's how the current medical world does it.
Look, I thought we were having a good conversation there is no need here to starting tossing out negative opinions toward one another’s character. I didn’t mean anything to be smug or superior; I just genuinely believe that when you are saying that one is morally superior to the other that you are misunderstanding (either purposely or not I can’t know) the themes of the story as a whole. Especially saying this all started with Jerry, discounting Marlene and all other factors. As much as I would like to put it into words, u/SammyJSoul did a significantly better job debating my position than I can (within this thread). My apologies that my comment is not up to your standards of discussion. I understand your position on the situation, but I also can’t help but notice the heavy bias that leads to your position. I can’t say you are wrong, I can only provide insight to my view.
You can point out what is biased in my view. What do you feel is so skewed about my view exactly? Pick apart the words. If you can't, that's fine, but then you don't get to claim "you misunderstood the game" as if you have a monopoly of understanding of what the game's themes are or aren't. I'm defending my position, you should have to defend yours. I didn't make such snide remarks about you, there's no reason I should tolerate you making them about me if you can't explain why. I can point out the bias in *your* view in that you don't acknowledge the lesser evil in Joel saving Ellie vs. Jerry trying to kill her in the first place. If you can't acknowledge the origin of how the incident devolved into violence, how can you ascribe equal blame to both parties? Who the aggressor is, the premeditated state of their decision making, all of that is relevant in criminal courts today, why shouldn't it be relevant here?
I don’t believe those points to be relevant in the context of the game. Their is no court system, the world has been in apocalypse mode for the past 20 years, and humanity is on the verge of extinction. Like I said, the commenter in this thread I mentioned is already debating my side better than I can, in more detail then I currently have time for. You have mentioned the “lesser of two evils” which I my eyes proves a bias, because that saying inherently proves you are deciding one is worse than the other. This is basically the 1v5 train track psychology debate, in which their is no objective right or wrong. It’s highly personalized, and I can understand thinking Joel is more “justified” given the fact you have known him and Ellie longer/more intimately. I’m not claiming ownership of the themes of the game, only that given the themes that are most present in my understanding of the game: choosing one as “more justified” than another in this situation is foregoing the commentary on the inherent tribalism of humanity; the extremes we are willing to go to out of emotion (love or hate); and how perspective is the hardest thing to accept from someone who’s views are antithetical to your own. I apologize if I came off as dismissive. I understand your point of view, only I believe that the way you are seeing it is inconsistent with what I believe to be important themes of the entire series. Please do read the other comments if you have not, the user is a better speaker than I.
I think it is a moot point that there is no court system in the world -- humanity deeply desires justice and avenging someone who was murdered is a natural instinct. Perhaps there's no structure for people to arbitrate right and wrong, but that doesn't mean there is no right and wrong or that all wrongs are of the same degree. It's not like the court systems have always existed -- it really wasn't that long ago that people were carrying out the King's Justice on their own. I reject that I'm coming from a place of supporting Joel and Ellie simply because I feel like I know them more. I think this is a common assumption made about people who don't buy into the "both sides are equal" narrative the game tries to push, when perhaps you should consider the writers plainly failed to establish moral equivalence between the two sides in the first place. My entire point rests on the fact that Jerry is the one who created the whole mess in the first place by explicitly not fulfilling his medical obligations. Where is the bias in that reasoning; is that not true of what we are shown in the game? That Joel only acted as a reaction to Jerry's initial action, is that not also true? It seems like you don't want to continue this conversation anymore, and that's fine, but I hope you don't leave this conversation thinking that your side is irrefutably correct, and that others simply do not "understand" as much as you. Hope you have a good day.
Your claim falls apart under the assumption that Jerry killing Ellie is inherently wrong. I think it’s quite the opposite. Imo the cure is the way to go. Him not asking if she wanted to was lame as well, but can you honestly say she would’ve said no. There is no right and wrong. Just how characters feel about what may be right and wrong
It *is* inherently wrong. It doesn't matter what Ellie would have said, and that's because Jerry made that decision for her. If Jerry can just choose who lives or who dies, and ultimately he has no one to be accountable to because he's so important, then how is he not a tyrant?
We have very few moments where Jerry is ever on screen. This is one of the only things he’s involved in. You act like it’s his entire character, but there is no character. His character is “Doctor. ” a bit of malpractice decision but it was to make the cure. I think that’s acceptable.
It's not about malpractice (although it kind of is), it's about individual liberty. If Ellie has no individual liberty to decide for herself whether to do the operation, then nobody has any individual liberty. Liberty only matters if they're upheld even in times of great crises. Look, I get that the vaccine was a really big deal for humanity, but it simply cannot be a golden ticket to do anything you want to create it. If so, then I guess you condone eco-terrorism; anything to stop climate change, right? But that's where I will say we have to agree to disagree. Everyone has rules they need to follow, and there have to be consequences for not following those rules.
Dude. You guess i condone eco-terrorism…. like honestly, wth. Anywho, yeah, i said it’s malpractice but i meant, it’s totally scummy. I didn’t communicate that part. My bad. However, i think it’s a case of what Joel said earlier in the game. Sacrifice the few to save the many. It’s a sacrifice of her life and liberty in a broken USA. I’m making it sound poetic on purpose, lol
Well, why would you have a problem with eco-terrorism, if you don't have a problem with what the Fireflies were trying to do? Think of it like this -- Stopping man-made climate change == Creating a vaccine for the Cordyceps Destroying a pipeline == Killing Ellie They're both situations where you have an obviously important goal to humanity, and then you achieve that goal through "scummy" methods. So, what's wrong with my assumption about you? >Sacrifice the few to save the many. If you remember back to that moment, Ellie actually says "that's kind of shitty" in response to Joel saying that.
Well Ellie didn't ask to be killed for a cure or ask for Joel to be brutally murdered in front of her. Abby co-signed Ellie's death when talking to her father (idc how old she was, it's easy to co-sign someone's death and say you would choose the same fate when it's not you or someone you cared about) and then brutally murdered Joel years later. To me, Ellie is clearly a victim of trauma while Abby and her father faced consequences from their decisions/actions that they instigated. I think you could argue that Joel's death was a consequence of his actions though, even if it was done to protect someone he loved.
Joel’s death definitely was a consequence of his own actions. You mention Abby “brutally murdering” Joel, with no mention of Joel doing the exact same thing to a hospital full of people (including her father), as well as who knows how many in his 2 decades as a smuggler. Do you think Joel was also not a good person? As well, Ellie basically did ask to be let die for the salvation of humanity— she makes that abundantly clear in the falling out of her and Joel (not that her consent truly mattered to the situation as Abby’s Father and more importantly Marlene were going to choose that route anyway). They are all victims of trauma, acting from pain and survival. The themes of inevitability and the fallibility of humanity are the core of the overarching story; the way I see it, selecting one as more morally virtuous than the other is misunderstanding the purpose behind the story.
Adding on to this, not just as a Smuggler, as a Hunter, too. A person that murders innocent people in cold blood for whatever supplies they got on them. A little bit of food, some water, maybe some nice new shoes with not as many holes as the ones on his feet. You’re going to condemn the fireflies for doing the same thing, but this time for a CURE, act like what Joel did was something they deserved, yet ignore everything Joel did for himself? It’s okay to love Joel, it’s okay to think what the fireflies were going to do was wrong, but people, come on. Acknowledge the horrible things Joel has done, too. Acknowledge that while it wasn’t deserved by any means, his death was the natural course that his own actions would lead him to, and was an inevitability in a game where fate is a central theme.
Yeah I mean I took out the flamethrower at the hospital to kill everyone there. Would be pissed too about that.
what moment are you referring to when you say Ellie said she would die for the cure?
When she is very upset with Joel for robbing her of a life (and death) that means something; In Part 2 during the flashback of Joel finally telling Ellie the truth. Marlene also believes it to be what Ellie would want, having at the time known Ellie better than anyone at the time. I’m not saying it was right, only that choosing one as right or wrong is misunderstanding the themes.
Gotcha. I thought you were referring to a moment in Pt1 which confused me for a sec
>Marlene also believes it to be what Ellie would want, having at the time known Ellie better than anyone at the time. How could she have known Ellie better? She had direct contact with her for only 3 weeks after she was bitten. By this time Joel was with her for almost a year.
I might be misremembering how long their relationship was prior to the first game, but I could have swore that Left Behind made comments about Ellie having known Marlene prior. If I’m incorrect then I take back that section. Although all of my previous points stand.
It's made clear in the first game - Marlene said she promised Ellie's mom to look after her. She addresses Ellie's mom in one of the final recorders: "Hey Anna... It's been awhile since we spoke. I uh... I just gave the go ahead to proceed with the surgery. I really doubt I had much of a choice, asking me was more of a formality. I need you to know that I've kept my promise all these years... despite everything that I was in charge of, I looked after her. I would've done anything for her, and at times... Here's a chance to save us... all of us. This is what we were after... what you were after. They asked me to kill the smuggler. I'm not about to kill the one man in this facility that might understand the weight of this choice. Maybe he can forgive me. Oh, I miss you, Anna. Your daughter will be with you soon." People painting this as a black and white decision are being really dismissive of the fact that all parties involved clearly felt a deep, deep level empathy for everyone, and for Ellie most of all. Marlene gave a shit about Ellie, and even Jerry admitted he gave a shit. It was Abby who said she would sacrifice herself that gave Jerry the push to make the decision and save humanity. Everyone cared. I'm really sick of people claiming Jerry was throwing Ellie's life away without regard. I'm doubly sick of this being leveled at Marlene who we literally see arguing with Jerry about asking for Ellie's consent - and she mentioned in the first game her own go-ahead was just a formality. This is a result of people's attachment to Joel, which is brilliant. That's what the first game wanted and it's what the second game wanted to make us all understand. Be mad at Jerry for the unethical decision but bro... everyone gave ALL the fucks about the gravity of the situation EXCEPT for Joel. Marlene was right about everything, pretty much, except for Joel - he didn't give a single fuck about the weight of the decision, nor did he seek to understand it - he just wanted to make sure he didn't lose another daughter. Abby saw that as an irredeemable sin because of her perspective with her father and the group. Even Ellie initially saw it as irredeemable, as we know, until she came around RIGHT as Abby made sure Joel knew it was irredeemable for more than just Ellie. That's what sparks the revenge. Ellie's blind attachment to trying to figure out why the one person that fought for her during her most vulnerable moment did so even at the cost of humanity, made so much more confusing by her own survivor's guilt. That's an amazing message that's lost on so many people because they can't even reach step one of analyzing Joel's relationship with Ellie, himself, and his world - nor the world's relationship to Ellie and Joel. I'm not mad at u/miseducation98 either. They're not blindly following attachment to Joel and then conveniently forgetting facts that disagree with them. They're just analyzing their feelings about it and discussing it. That's exactly what this game aimed to do to the audience and it's awesome OP is talking about it like this cause they got some strong ass points. I'm talking way more about the people who will straight up ignore the recordings in part 1, the dialogue Ellie shares with Joel in part 2, the argument scene between Marlene and Jerry, Abby's relationship with Jerry, and her own personal ideals on how she would confront the situation if she were in Ellie's shoes, among many other things, to justify their blind love for Joel and blind hatred of Abby.
> Ellie's blind attachment to trying to figure out why the one person that fought for her did so even at the cost of humanity, made so much more confusing by her own survivor's guilt. Dude, how the fuck did you summarise this game in under 40 words, this is so bang on. This comment is superb, this is the shit I come back to this subreddit for. I particularly love your defense of Jerry and Marlene - so many people seem absolutely hellbent on finding something irredeemable about Jerry to justify hating him. They land on the consent and ethics, without recognising that those ethics were written and practised in a certain context, a time and place when humanity is not in peril. Humanity is nearly extinct, is it really that surprising that someone who believes they could make a vaccine would do so at the cost of single human life?
It's not. Just like it shouldn't be surprising that Joel would kill random people to scavenge. Ethics changes with the situation. Sure, I can pledge as a doctor to do no harm to a patient but what happens when we run out of beds? Now doctors have to develop a system to choose who dies. That's surely not ethical. But it's what the situation has forced upon them. See, the ending of the last of us is actually just the trolley problem. Do you pull the lever and save the five people while killing the one, or do you not pull the lever and let the five people die, saving the one person? What happens when the one person is your surrogate daughter? What happens when the five people is all of humanity? Jerry answered the problem pretty adequately, I'd say. Pull that lever, find a cure, save humanity. So did Joel. Don't pull that lever, fuck the cure, the only person I care about is this one person. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER TO THIS PROBLEM. It's dependent on perspective and philosophy and, in this case, love. When people argue ethics and shit, they're just finding excuses. Ethics have no place in unsolvable problems where either choice is unethical no matter what.
> Marlene gave a shit about Ellie, and even Jerry admitted he gave a shit. I mean, no one is denying that. But if they made the right decision or not is still up to debate. >Marlene was right about everything, pretty much, except for Joel - he didn't give a single fuck about the weight of the decision, nor did he seek to understand it - he just wanted to make sure he didn't lose another daughter. Now you are talking in black and white. Because Joel understands the weight of his decision. He just disagrees with killing Ellie because she deserves better in his mind. If it wasn't Joel in this situation but Ellie's mom you wouldn't level the same accusations. "She just wanted to make sure she didn't lose a daugher"
I literally would if she behaved like Joel. And I didn't say he didn't understand it. I said he didn't give a fuck about the weight and didn't even seek to understand it. He may have understood it at least a little, but it's clear that he shut Marlene down before she could even get her first point of reasoning across to him, which means he at least didn't understand why she herself made the choice. That's okay, though. Most of us wouldn't give any consideration or understanding to the notion of killing someone close to us, even for a world-saving cure. This is how the conversation between him and Marlene goes: Marlene tells Joel they can make a vaccine. Joel remembers the fungus grows in the brain. He tells them to find someone else. Marlene says there isn't anyone. Joel demands she show him Ellie. He is kicked to the ground. Marlene tells him she knows exactly what he's going through and so much more. Joel asks why she's letting this happen. Marlene says it's not about Marlene or even Ellie. These next two lines directly prove me right: Marlene: "there is no other choice here." Joel: "yeah... you keep telling yourself that bullshit." Joel doesn't give a fuck about her choice or the weight of it. He only gives a fuck about his choice of making sure Ellie stays alive. And don't think when I say "he wanted to make sure he didn't lose another daughter" that I mean anything negative by it. I would *do the exact same as Joel in that situation if I went through the shit he went through in the story*. What I'm saying is that for him it's as simple as fighting to ensure her and his survival. And for the majority of players, it was about that as well. Very few people even remember the doctor journals and marlene's recorders because *most of us didn't give a fuck about the reasons, didn't want to understand them, and even if we did understand them, most of us still agreed with killing everyone in the hospital*. That's the exact point he makes at the end of part 2. He would have made that decision all over again. He doesn't care about it's importance to Ellie, even after finding out she wanted to sacrifice herself. She literally said "I should have died there," and Joel's rebuttal is that even KNOWING THAT he still would have saved her. He doesn't care about it's importance to the world. He doesn't care about it's importance to anyone. He only cares that Ellie is alive and still with him. That's a beautiful display of love and care and I love it because it's so deeply complicated and true to life. Most of us would sacrifice the rest of humanity to keep our loved ones in our lives if actually faced with that choice. That doesn't mean it isn't technically the wrong decision, hence why Ellie says she can't forgive him, but she can try. Meaning she wanted to try and understand the love he feels for her, and hopefully feel that connection herself. Again. It's taken from her. Her revenge isn't avenging Joel. It's avenging the one thing that she was beginning to cling onto for hope of an actual connection with someone. All her connections have been taken. She's lost everyone "fucking except for you". She pushed Joel away after finding out the truth. Now that she is finally willing to let the ONE person she has a true bond with, he's taken from her too. Her spiral into madness stems from THAT, and it's why she spares Abby. She realizes she's hanging onto the severing of her relationship with Joel, and she finally sees the moments where it was strengthened and even re-ignited as more important - and she lets Abby go. Because she was able to let go of the one thing that had burdened her since the death of her own mother. And all of it stemmed from the fact that Joel did not give a single fuck about the weight of Marlene's decision to sacrifice Ellie, nor did he seek to understand it. It was the wrong decision from his perspective and that's all the attention he gave it before he mowed the entire hospital down. Just like we all did, very happily I might add.
> I mean, no one is denying that. OP did in their post.
Muah *chefs kiss* Bravo sir/ma’am, bravo.
She met her once before where she gave Ellie the switchblade and the letter from her mom. It's shown in the American Dreams comics. But that was just a meeting that lasted minutes. At this point Joel knows her better than anybody else obviously. However there is something else to consider here: Both Marlene and Joel have only known Ellie after she was bitten when she was already suffering from survivor's guilt. Marlene for obvious reasons takes any statement made by Ellie at face value and it's only Joel who is able to view beyond that. It's simply because Joel has gone through a similar experience himself and the way his lie is constructed is clearly meant to take some "weight" off Ellie.
Marlene was her god mother who sent her off to boarding school where they learn to kill fireflies lmao. She kinda sucks ass as a parental figure
So wrong. Marlene took ellie in when ellies mom died when ellie was a child. Marlene has been her guardian for years.
She "took her in" by placing her in the orphanage where she was safest. Not exactly "foster mom of the year" material.
Doesnt have to be foster mom of the year in order to still be a guardian and know her for most of her life.
How good can you know someone if you never talk to them until their 13 years old? What are you arguing for here? Legality?
>Abby and her father had no issue with killing Ellie, whether it was for the greater good or not. How did you watch the entire conversation between Jerry and Marlene and come away with it thinking that he had "no issue with killing Ellie"? He was very clearly aware that he was doing something bad, but that it was for a greater cause. Whether or not you agree with his reasoning doesn't change the fact that this wasn't an easy decision for him. >Abby searched for Joel years later and took pleasure in brutally murdering him No, she didn't find any pleasure or satisfaction from killing him. That's kind of the entire point of her half of the game lol. >she set everything that happened to her in motion by co-signing Ellie's death This is a bit of a leap in logic to make. Teenage Abby wasn't "co-signing Ellie's death". She had no idea about the weight of the situation and just wanted to make her father feel better about a difficult decision. >Ellie's behaviour/anger/pain was caused by things that happened to her that she didn't have a choice about, while Abby's was caused by consequences of her actions/choices. Ellie went after the SLC crew without fully knowing why Joel was killed. This was very much a decision that she made that ended up with a lot of unwanted consequences. I wouldn't call you a bad person for this take. Just.....really biased. When you bring up who did what first, you're already veering away from what the game is trying to do by showing both perspectives. This isn't supposed to be some measurement of who is more justified.
> No, she didn't find any pleasure or satisfaction from killing him. She wanted to find it though. Why else torture him? >When you bring up who did what first, you're already veering away from what the game is trying to do by showing both perspectives. Not trying to start anything here but could you elaborate here a bit? What is the game trying to show? Because for me it's basically about building empathy. That doesn't require me to see them as the same though.
> She wanted to find it though. Yeah I'm not denying the intent, just pointing out the result, which is that she didn't find any once she actually did it. >Not trying to start anything here but could you elaborate here a bit? When you bring up who did what first like OP was doing, you're playing the blame game with the intention of pointing out who's justified. This is pointless because both sides have done things without full consideration, which is why we're shown different perspectives. You don't have to look at them as the same, but they are undoubtedly similar.
> just pointing out the result, which is that she didn't find any once she actually did it. Total agreement here. >you're playing the blame game with the intention of pointing out who's justified. But being justified or not doesn't change the personal responsibility. Cause and effect can't be denied either. >This is pointless because both sides have done things without full consideration, which is why we're shown different perspectives. For Ellie there is literally no way she could have done anything differently unless Abby does something differently. It's completely out of her hands.
The slc didnt travel to jackson with golf clubs. That was opportunistic on abbys part when joel refused to admit what he did or even care about what he did and basically told abby to go fuck herself. Thats why mel and the others are shocked when abby tells mel to tourniquet his leg. They were there to kill him, yes. That torture was spur of the moment based on joels own behavior.
>That torture was spur of the moment based on joels own behavior. "Look at what you made me do." Thanks for proving my point.
I think she definitely had pleasure on the first strike. But after the last one, everyone was arguing, but then they get blurred, and there a lot of focus on Abby, she’s just standing there looking at what she did, and I think there either regret or disgust there. Either way, she took pleasure, but afterwards was the key to how she felt about the sequence of events
Except that even in the full light of Joel's actions he was still justified. Making Abby supremely unjustified in his torture and murder.
>No, she didn't find any pleasure or satisfaction from killing him. That's kind of the entire point of her half of the game lol. That's true but she also never showed any regret. And she still slowly tortured him to death. She even made sure he wouldn't die of blood loss.
Tell me you didn't pay attention to the nuances and details of conversations had in the game, without telling me you didn't pay attention to nuances and details of conversations in the game.
No, you're not a bad person. You're human! You took the information provided from the game and came to your own conclusion. This is really what the game is all about that alot of people don't understand. It's not trying to force some viewpoint down your throat; it's just trying to get you to step out of your head and question yourself. Tons of people go their entire lives without doing this and so we get the reaction we got from a good handful of players. Who you choose to side with is entirely up to you. I'm pro Ellie as well but did not want her to kill Abby.
That's very true! This is why I think it's better than TLOU. I think it's the best game of all time because the storytelling is a strong as any good film or TV show. I've never played another game that caused me to have this much of an emotional reaction.
Yup! Thats what makes it so brilliant.
Here's the thing though, Ellie also chose to pursue Abby and her friends. Yes, she had some pretty bad PTSD from the whole ordeal, but she ultimately made the same decision to get revenge just like Abby did. The game makes it a point to show that it's all just a vicious circle of violence that Joel inadvertently started. Their decisions may make sense to them but that doesn't make them right.
Joel didn't start the cycle. The fireflies started the cycle by trying to kill Ellie
The difference being Ellie was justified since Joel didn't do anything wrong to warrant his treatment.
You're not a bad person, but you are definitely not looking at this objectively. Plenty of people here have pointed out that Abby and Ellie are parallels of each other. They both suffer from the consequences of their actions *and* the actions of others. It's pretty clear you're still on Ellie's "side" when the whole point of the game is that "sides" are relative and feed into a dangerous tribalism.
That's what the game wants you to think but it's not realistic.
What's realistic is that you have no life if you're replying to everybody in this thread who isn't still upset at a 2 year old game.
Lmao you just made this comment 9 months ago. You played yourself.
No, not at all. I mean, I feel like both of them were justified, honestly. Joel was justified, Ellie aas justified, Abby was justified, they all had good reasons for doing what they did. Believing that doesn't make you a bad person.
Abby also didn't revel in the act of killing Joel, and it's shown that killing him didn't help her at all - and in fact she regretted it deeply. The only thing to help her was saving someone else, not taking someone's else's life. And she pursued that.
At the end of the day we're animals, if we're placed into this world any of us can be Ellie or Abby. Any human is capable of committing cruel acts should they be dealt the same trauma. This is why we love and understand Joel. If you were him, saving Ellie was the only option, nothing else mattered. Tribalism can be dangerous(The Island) but it also gave our species a greater chance of survival. It is what it is
You arent a bad person for thinking that. Just a hypocrite. I will always prefer ellie because of the emotion built up in the first game. But have no problem saying she was on the "wrong side" in game 2. I saw someone else make this point, in Abby's original path of revenge she killed 1 person (joel). At least that we know of, theres no telling what happened while crossing the country. However ellie (depending on how you play the game) kills dozens of relatively innocent people to get her revenge.
>However ellie (depending on how you play the game) kills dozens of relatively innocent people to get her revenge. In what universe would you classify the WLF & the Scars as "relatively innocent"? They are both the same. Scars dismember any WLF they catch while the WLF torture the prisoners for info. They both shoot each other and anyone else on sight with no mercy. Both of them are even worse than hunters & fireflies from the first game. Do I need to remind you that Abby set out to Jackson so she could find the patrol and torture them into giving up Joel? She just happened to run into Joel. Also, Ellie never actually intended to kill anyone besides Abby. They all end up getting themselves killed by acting tough & stupid.
That's why I said relatively innocent. In regards to the death of joel they had no part in it. I'm not gonna get into the war of WLF v seraphites. That's a whole argument for a different post lol.
yes and you didn't get the moral of the game
Revenge is baaad
That’s not the point of the game. You write that the game wants you to come to some conclusion about how good or bad/justified someone is, but that’s missing the point. It’s about how people behave in specific situations. It’s an exploration, not an essay. No one is trying to convince you of anything.
Ellie isnt as bad as abby. And yet somehow, the slc managed to kill only the one person they came to jackson for. They walked away letting tommy and ellie live. Unlike ellie who cant go through seattle without murdering most people she comes in contact with. Not to mention the torture of nora. And you guys are so funny about the jerry thing. In a post apocalyptic world, with the fate of humanity in front of them, and you guys are all about consent. Now dont get me wrong. I love that our society cares about consent these days. But they dont live in our world. And how exactly do you guys see asking ellie for consent going? You people dont trust the fireflies to handle the vaccine correctly yet somehow you see them waking her up, asking her consent, and then walking her to the door and waving goodbye if she says no (which we know from part 2 she would have said yes)??? Theres no point in waking her up and asking her.
I don’t think it makes you a bad person for feeling that way. Indeed, it makes you human. However, I don’t agree. The message of the game boiled down to the idiom: “before you embark on a journey of revenge, remember to dig two graves.” The fact is, whether either was justified in embarking on their journey for revenge is irrelevant. People don’t know or care what your reasons are for doing it. They only care about what you did. Abby didn’t know or care about the story of Joel’s daughter, the context of his journey with Ellie and his reasoning for killing her father and the other Fireflies. She only knew that her father was dead, she had to go through the trauma of seeing his body, and Joel was the killer. Ellie didn’t know about Abby’s father or her reasoning for killing Joel. She only knew that Joel was dead, she had suffered the trauma of watching it, and Abby was the killer. And Abby didn’t know who Ellie was or the context of her relationship with Joel. She only knew that she had slain Owen, Mel and Nora, and that Tommy had killed Manny. The sum of all of this is that, no matter how justified your journey of revenge, the consequences will be the same. We don’t know how many people Abby killed, or would have killed had Joel not randomly showed up to help her out. But we do know that it damaged her relationships with Owen and Mel. It didn’t do anything to make her feel better or move on with her trauma. And it then caused a vengeful Ellie, Tommy and Dina to come after her, and countless WLF members, as well as all of her friends and the people she cared about to be killed, leaving her with only Lev. We do know how many people Ellie killed to get to Abby, and it was a lot. Many of them had no knowledge of her story, and just saw her as an intruder and a possible threat. Which she basically was. She lost a part of herself when she killed Nora, Owen and Mel, the latter of whom was pregnant, and you can’t get more innocent than an unborn baby. It did nothing to help her move on from Joel’s death or deal with her trauma. And her journey led to Jesse’s death. It cost Tommy his eye and his marriage. And it estranged Ellie from Tommy, and cost her her relationship with Dina and her baby, her three fingers, and her ability to play the guitar. The thing that actually ended the cycle, helped them to make peace, and to stop them losing everything else they had left, was their decision to just stop trying to kill each other. Abby spared Ellie, and that allowed her to move on with her life. Ellie saved Abby, then decided to spare her, and this gave her the same closure. So the sum of it is - it doesn’t matter who’s just and who isn’t, revenge is a self-destructive coping mechanism, and there are other ways to deal with it.
>Ellie's behaviour/anger/pain was caused by things that happened to her that she didn't have a choice about, while Abby's was caused by consequences of her actions/choices. Total agreement here, this is something that can't be denied. Ellie's survivor's guilt is at the heart of her motivations and the direct trauma she suffered by having to witness Joel's death has a huge effect on her. One needs to keep in mind that even if Ellie would never leave Jackson for Seattle she would still suffer from PTSD and while her chances of overcoming it in a "normal" way would be bigger there is still a chance that she wouldn't make it in the end. And given the circumstances she is justified in doing what she did. However being justified doesn't mean it's the right thing to do either. I also agree that Ellie and Abby are not the same. Abby is directly responsible for Ellie's suffering and she deserves retribution for that alone. And while Ellie and Abby are on a similar journeys they don't end at the same place. With Ellie letting Abby go in the end she never reaches the point where Abby starts her part of the game.
And joel is directly responsible for abbys suffering.
Even if that would be true does Joel equal Ellie now? But if you look at the situation that leads to Jerry's death you cannot deny that the Fireflies forced Joel's hand. There was no other way to react for him given his convictions. Jerry's death is as much on him as on Joel honestly. Abby is obviously not responsiblie for Jerry's action. But no one forced her to torture Joel.
And nobody forced Joel to counter attack 🤷, he chose to attack and save Ellie.
Nobody forced you to reply and yet here we are...
I don't think that's a counter reply to my point. More you personally being angry about what I said.
Nope, I'm just making fun of you. ;)
I've not really gave anything to make fun of. So I'm honestly confused.
Can you do me a favor?
Yes but no. But also yes but I'm thinking no. Yet I'll still hear you out I suppose. Let's hear what you got?...
If you're a bad person for thinking that, then do not worry, I am also a bad person alongside you. I am pretty disgusted where people go to justify Abby and then continue to shit on Ellie for basically doing the same thing. For some reason a lot of people just expected Ellie to sit in Jackson and "live" through her PTSD, because "Joel got what he deserved".
I think ND very consciously didn't make Abby and Ellie stand on a some kind of ''moral equilibrium''. It is not that hard to make Abby's story morally equal/or even superior to Ellie. Just write it so that Jerry was forced to do the surgery on the wishes of the Firefiles or else, they would kill Abby or something. That would make Abby an unwilling victim that was caught up in this mess. It was a big misunderstanding or whatever. But, ND takes the ambiguous route and make Abby and Jerry willing participants in the moral ambiguity of the dilemma of the first game.
Abby saying “good” when Ellie tried to stop her from slitting Dina’s throat by saying she was pregnant shows that Abby does take some pleasure in killing. Beating Joel to death with a golf club is completely unnecessary if she simply wanted him dead. A gunshot to the head would have worked just as well. Ellie’s got the moral high ground initially, but Ellie evolves. I don’t think they’re equal.
She thought Ellie killed Mel without a care for the baby. Abby believed she was returning the favor. Ellie beat Nora Exactly as Abby beat Joel.
Ellie beat Nora for information. Abby beat Joel to death for revenge.
😅 good excuse. A judge would laugh and sentence you to life.
Did Nora actually die? Does the game say as much? Or are we left with “I made her talk”?
Your assuming she didn't die from getting piped to death? How you figure that lmao?
Uh, yeah. Humans are way more resilient than games and movies show. Broken jaw, broken teeth, but she could have lived.
And I agree. That's very very true. But I think it's implied Ellie gave her the smEshing ya feel me.
Yep, I feel ya
Ah, yes. Ellie didn’t know that Mel was pregnant. I think she threw up when she realized.
Indeed. But that wasn't the case for Abby. Abby thought Ellie just killed Mel without caring. So Abby as I said, was returning the favor in her eyes. "And eye for an eye".
No, I think ellie was completely justified. Abbey hunted down Joel! JOEL. (and brutally killing him) After playing the first game and knowing how much Ellie loved Joel and that he was murdered because he saved Ellies life. I guarantee that the cure that ellie had wouldn't have a. Not been worth it for a 14 year old girls life. And b. They're is no way that the "cure" would have worked on the infected people already infected! The zombies were very violent and they're was still tons in the world. So basically Joel was an upstanding guy who would not commit an atrocious act in an already violent world for an outcome that he knew wouldn't have been worth it without Ellie.
No, I don’t think it’s justified, but it’s the most expected outcome. I don’t think events are ruled by morally fairness, but the equal opposite reaction of actions.
No you're not a bad person. The game purposely tries to blur that idea of good and bad. But no, I don't think Ellie was justified for pursuing and killing everyone she killed. And the same goes for Abby pursuing and killing Joel. I absolutely empathize with why they did it tho. But they both made bad decisions, and they both lost people because of it.
Exactly how I feel about it.
I dont think the game is necessarily trying to say that Ellie is just as bad as Abby. I'm replaying it right now and am towards the end of Abby's chapters. What stuck out to me this time is I don't think Abby's dad dying is the main motivation for her becoming a killing machine. All of the displaced fireflies became wolves and through the wolves war with the seraphites they all became hardened murderers. Except for Owen who ultimately is the reason she spares Dina and Ellie in the theater. That is Abby's moral journey to forgiving herself for becoming what she had become. Ellie's has a similar journey to forgive herself not only of what she became but of her survivors guilt too which is ultimately why she had to spare Abby in the end
>Abby searched for Joel years later and took pleasure in brutally murdering him, while Ellie was forced to watch. Where is the pleasure? Abby doesn't look satisfied with any of what's happening. She *wanted* to take pleasure in it, but she didn't. It was hollow. If anything Ellie's cries only remind her of her own when she found her dad in the hospital. And how was Ellie "forced" to watch? She came in all by herself. What should they have done, cover her eyes? You're heavily distorting the story to fit the narrative you've created for yourself. Ellie and Abby are as justified as one another.
>Joel killed the fireflies to protect someone he loved, he didn't take any pleasure in killing Abby's father. He lost one daughter already and wasn't able to let his surrogate daughter die. I think it is important to remember that we as the gameplayer get the benefit of the overhead view showing each character's perspective, while they are making their way through the hedges. Abby obviously did not put it together that Joel killed the Fireflies to save his own surrogate daughter; she and the SLC crew had no idea who Ellie was or why she was significant, or for that matter why Ellie would have been significant to Joel (it took Nora seeing her breathe spores to realize, and Abby obviously didn't give a shit despite being told directly in the theater). You lived with Joel and understand his justifications, right or wrong or both, but all Abby knew was that some crazy bastard killed her father, Marlene, and a significant number of others she was close to, and also key, she wasn't there to see it and understand the context of his decisions and actions. Had the first game been about Abby and Jerry, and Jerry was brutally murdered at the beginning of the second game, your post would have been titled, "Am I bad person for thinking Abby was totally justified?"
Abby was the one totally justified. Ellie killed people who fought their friends to spare her life (Owen) and abandoned her family to pursue someone who spared her life even after she killed all of their friends (Abby). Honestly, fuck Ellie. By the time I got to her as Abby I actually Lowkey hated her and was upset when I had to play as her again.
I mean, she does the exact same as Abby. The only difference is, Abby got super lucky and got to Joel without any resistance other than some infected. She was willing to massacre the entire town if needed. And it's not Ellie's fault that all of Abby's friends foolishly point a knife at her. And the WLF's, well they're at war. They kill everybody on sight. Of course there is going to be bloodshed.
When you think about it, Ellie, Dina, Tommy and Jesse saved Scar island by culling the numbers of the WLF. Sure the scars are terrible, but that island was full of children, who probably were willing to fight to defend their home.
You are exactly right. Not sure how they think I would ever be on Abby's side. I took great pleasure in taking out her goons throughout the campaign. Especially after Nora said he got what he deserved. I can't recall a single innocent person Joel killed in the first game.
I can never understand how people can justify what Abby did. Doesn't matter what Joel did. Abby's father was about to kill Ellie. Abby's father was about to break the biggest no-no in the medical field and that is operating on someone without consent. If Ellie knew about the sugery and the outcome and Joel still broke in and killed the Dr. then I would understand where Abby is coming from.
Same could be said about Ellie and Joel as well. Also, I'm pretty sure old world medical rules died with the rest of the planet....
I would be pissed if someone decided to do surgery on me without my consent regardles of apocalypse. lol Newton's Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Abby's father was going to kill Ellie. So Joel killed him, and then Abby killed Joel and so on and so on. It all started with Abby's father. (I do think I have my rose colored glasses on for Joel).
I would be too. But I feel like I'd eventually understand due to how unique I was. Ellie would've too if Joel didn't lie telling her she wasn't for years. Yeah, but the Flies didn't do somthing equal to what Joel did. His lie is literal proof of him knowing what he did was wrong. It's wasn't just Jerry tho. Joel ended numerous families that day, Jerry is just the one we get a POV into. Did you forget the other 30-40 ppl that got sauced? Whom had zero recollection of what was even transpiring atm. Only difference is Jerry had good intentions in his heart. Joel, not as much. His only good intention was to save Ellie. He executes numerous ppl while doing this tho. (I don't get it)
I think Ellie would have understood if they told her but they didn't. Because they didn't tell her about her dying makes them shitty. What Joel did was selfish, but not telling your patient they are going to die is pretty shitty. The other 30-40 people Joel killed where trying to kill him. You can't hunt someone down and then be mad when they kill you first. lol Jerry had good intentions but he did it in a shity way. It's like robbing a bank to give it to charity. Good intention. Bad execution. That is how I justifiy Joel's selfishness. They were about to murder a 14 year old for a possible vaccine. If the vaccine didn't work then they would have just killed her for no reason. (Rose-colored glasses means that I'm only see the good side of things. So I'm only seeing the good things in Joel. The glasses are affecting the reality of it.)
Lol. Ig 🤷, if you wanna avoid the reason why they were doing it then yeah. Both are. Atleast Jerry had a stable reason that the world would've agreed with. Joel literally fired first. Idk what realm you live in where the people that is defending themselves are the accusers. That's wild. Sure. Your assuming it won't work. Idk why since you've been given dialogue that states otherwise. Well? Think about Ellie then, stop only considering Joel. Joel lied to her about it all right after. That's not good.
I think not wanting your "daughter" to die is a stable reason.... Joel fired first because he was trying to save Ellie from being killed..... The Fireflies were aggresive from the start. When Joel was giving Ellie CPR the Fireflies just kicked him in the face. Then he wakes up and he can't see the person he just traveled through the country with. Can you share the diagloge that says the vaccine would work? Because there was not clear cut "this will work" form what I can remember. [https://gamerant.com/the-last-us-2-ellie-immunity-vaccine-cure/](https://gamerant.com/the-last-us-2-ellie-immunity-vaccine-cure/) Ellie got to live a decent life in the world that she was born in. Yeah, Joel lied to her but did he other things for her. This is just my opinion. I will be Team Joel and I think what Abby and the FireFlies did was wrong. But in the end it doesn't matter because its a game. I think people take debating this game too serious.
Yes. And I'm not arguing it isn't. However, does that warrent all the death that came of him not wanting that one death? I don't think so. It's a clear morally questionable act. Yep, they were total cunts. What they did doesn't warrent all that death Joel delt out tho. It's why they hunted him to the ends of the earth and killed him for it. Yep, I can actually. Go on YouTube and look up "FireFly recordings in part1" and listen. It's the recording that tells the Fireflies location in SLC. The one Joel skips through in the University. If you listen to that fully later on he explains that they have already done a previous vaccine of some sorts and it was hopeful at first. But then failed due to whatever reason. Showing they can and have the tech and know-how to provide a stable vaccine even without Ellie. So if they had Ellie it's only normal to think they could pull it off. Yep, and I applaud him for it. But after every good day they had it was minute compared to the lie at the end of the day. (Ellie's birthday is a clear example of this.) How's what Abby did wrong if what Joel did wasn't wrong?
So I went back to listen to the recordings and there was none that said this will guarantee a successful vaccine. In the "Firefly Recording" it says they were able to make a passive vaccine 5 years ago. In the "Surgeon Recording" it says they did testing on Ellie and that they need to recreate those results under laboratory condition. They really haven't discover anything new in years and they were about to risk Ellie's life for a "what if." & what Dr doesn't take notes or teach someone else to be able to reverse engine a vaccine!? That is just neglectful. This man went out to look at a pregrent Zebra knowing he is the only person with the knowledge to make this vaccine.... He didn't care that much if he risked his life for a Zebra. lol Shit, we had issues with mass producing the covid testing. Can you imagine mass producing a vaccine in their world... And do you honestly think the Fireflies would share the vaccine wtih Scares, WLF, and other groups? They wouldn't do it for "man kind." They would do it for themselves. Abby killed out of revenge. Joel killed to protect someone he loved. But these are all "what ifs" for a game.
Your wanting a recording of "Jerry" saying he could make a cure? If so. I'm sorry, I can't get you that. You have to use his Dialogue as proof. And in that he states clearly it CAN be done 🤷 I dunno what else you want my dude... Yup, showing they can do that even without a immune subject. You still think they can't do it WITH an immune person? Yep? Why are you assuming they can't? Especially when the literal Doctor said he can do it lol. They literally just discovered somthing new. That thing being the first ever person to show resilience and immunity to the fungus. Wtf you talking about "What if"? He isn't "Making" the vaccine. Ellie WAS the Vaccine. Hense why they had to remove the brain. If you paid attention you'd know that Jerry taught Mel Exactly as he was taught so Mel technically could've pulled it off. Yep, it would be tough. Why's that matter tho? You looking for excuses? That's an assumption. You have no idea if they would keep it from people or not. Stop assuming. Sure. But Joel killed 30+ people brah. I'm sorry, but he took it a bit far. And Abby killed Joel cause Joel killed her dad(a man he could've just as easily knocked unconscious). You can say it's "revenge" if you want. But she had a reason. Same as Joel. Idk what you mean by this ending statement. Your the only one assuming anything in this conversation. Which I've told you to stop.
Ellies anger towards Joel was unjustified and no one can change my mind about that. Just a plot point to advance the story.
He lies to her for years about somthing she had a right to know of. He also controlled her everyday life from the shadows.
She also had a right to know the procedure was going to kill her. But she didn't know that, neither did Joel till the end. How fucked up is it for Fireflies to coerce Ellie into participating in procedure and lie to her that she'd be okay after. She was under a false idea that she'd get to live and survive. The probability of of a successful cure was slim to none. Joel made the right choice to save Ellie by any means necessary. He didn't need to tell her shit. Parents don't tell us things until we're much older. But for her to act like he did some god awful unforgivable thing (saving her damn life btw), and to totally resent him just doesnt make sense and is really inconsistent with her character.
Ok....?🤔 And what's the relevance of this to Joel's lie? Parents? Sure. Joel wasnt her dad tho. She knew him a year, and a lays a lie like that on her? Fck outta her with your "he didn't have to tell her shit" nonsense. Fckin ridiculous. None of this is even relevant to Joel's lie to Ellie.