Zombie Exodus: Safe Haven General Discussion Thread 2



Is it possible to kill the 3 soldiers that come to pick up lopez with your ranged weapon if you have master level?


If you mean to kill all three of them, then no. You can only kill one.

My advice would be to go for the Cowboy; he has the best loot out of all the three.


Well, just tried a homemaker run, and I see why it is a popular choice. Even without preferred skills you can create a character even more powerful than a college student, and you can get 20+ food from the start and meet the legendary Nate Milford.


If we donate to the Patreon at a low level per month due we get access to LOOK at the Patreon only content?


You get the content at the level of the support. For example, if you want just short stories, then donate $3.


Remind me again, was Tommy originally a scripted death but was brought back due to popular demand (and no contractual obligation to kill), or was it always planned for part 1-2.


Pretty sure he was a scripted death at first. He was brought back though due to popular demand.


Popular demand, and some fairly hefty commentary about the “Bury Your Gays” trope :sweat_smile:


But I always thought his death made sense before. And it seems a little unfair to Jim to accuse it of being a part of the Bury Your Gays trope (whoever said that). It’s not like he just spontaneously combusted as we were talking to him. It’s the zombie apocalypse. Lots of people wind up dead.


Can you give me a battalion of troops and i will take care of them zombies.


Speaking as one of the “whoever”, I’d say that even if it’s not intentional (and I’m sure it wasn’t), it still counts. One of the reasons it occurs (even in non-homophobic works) is because gay characters are more likely to be in minor-but-sympathetic roles, and such characters are also the most likely to be killed off.

And you point out that lots of people do die in the zombie apocalypse, but as I pointed out in the original thread, if the only named, non-antagonistic character to die on every route is also the only gay character to appear, then yes, it does count. (I didn’t know about Parker at the time, but he was pretty much just a voice on the telephone back then.)


I apologize if I was sounding insensitive or combative. That wasn’t my intention and I’m sorry if I offended anyone. I simply don’t understand why him being gay matters. Most characters we have in our group are player sexual. We have plenty of potential homosexuals on our team. It was also the first book in the series. There were still plenty of chances for gay characters to be in the series and survive. It just seems a bit…wrong I guess to get upset about a gay character dying off but be more ok with that character dying off if he was straight. I know a lot of people wanted him to live because they liked his character. That’s fine. But when you start bringing the fact that he was gay into the argument of why he should be kept alive I feel like that’s where it becomes a bit of a problem. Sorry again if I’m offending anyone.


This is a topic I’ve covered before, but the gist of it is that gay representation is important to straight people, too. It helps to normalise us, to let homophobes, and people who are just unfamiliar with us understand that we’re just people, too. It also helps closeted people struggling with internalised homophobia to come to terms with themselves. This is why representation is important in all works, and why it’s important that in IF there are gay characters who remain gay despite the player’s choices. (And it doesn’t work the other way around: straight people don’t need representation, as pretty much every story is straight representation.) And killing off your representation hurts this, as it reinforces a narrative where we’re lesser, more expendable, people, who are unlikely to ever find a happy ending.

(Note that this also applies to other forms of representation; I’m not claiming gay representation is uniquely more important than racial representation, or anything like that.)


First, I wanna say I mostly agree with you. But I don’t think it’s that it would be better for a straight person to die. There’s also the “black people always die first” trope for movies. For gender/racial/sexual minorities it’s just more obvious when their screentime (pagetime?) is cut short since they’re so few and far between compared the others. It’s like you finally see someone different, or someone who actually represents you, but then they get taken away so soon. It makes it seem like everyone else gets character growth and a happy ending except for the GSM. It gets a little exhausting after a while.

To reiterate, it’s not "oh the straight person should die instead. " It’s more of: “Finally, someone like m- aaand they’re dead. :neutral_face:


Thank you for explaining this. While I still have some…issues I guess with this whole thing it does help to see other peoples viewpoints on it. I’m glad we could talk about this in a civil manner without it devolving into name calling and the other assorted nonsense you tend to get on the internet. So thank you again.

I didn’t mean it like that. Its just that the way the argument was presented to me made it seem like if you had Tommy stay exactly like he was in the book, minus him being gay, some people would have less of a problem with him dying off. I just know how bringing homosexuality into arguments like these can lead down a slippery slope of sorts. People become afraid of writing the characters how they want because they might get seen as a homophobe or other such labels when all they wanted to do was write a character as gay who winds up dying.


And it isn’t uncommon… :confounded: Even (especially) in stories actually about gay characters…

To be fair, if he hadn’t been gay, I wouldn’t have fought for him (well, maybe a little :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: ). A gay character represents more than a straight (or playersexual) character does, and thus their death also means more. Obviously this doesn’t mean that gay people are more important than straight people, but characters are not actually people, being instead representations of people, and thus an underrepresented minority character is more important than a non-minority character of the same plot relevance.

I guess the question there is: why do they want to write a gay character who ends up dying? Why can’t they write about a gay character who gets a cute boyfriend? :confused: I’m not saying “everyone who kills off gay characters is homophobic”, but if a story’s only gay character dies while the straight characters all (or even just mostly) get happy endings, then something is wrong there.


There I go wording things wrong again. The way I see it Tommy was written as he was to provide a bit of backstory and make his death a bit more meaningful. Making him a sympathetic character who’s death shows that even good and likable people aren’t immune to the horrors of the apocalypse. That the zombies don’t care who you were before all of this. I’m not quite sure. Perhaps making him gay was just an afterthought. The character could have already been completely created minus his sexuality and Jim decided that since we already meet a few straight couples with some backstory that get killed why not make this one gay? That actually sounds a bit wrong as I write it but I honestly can’t think of a better way to put it. Sorry :sweat_smile:.


I mostly made it possible to save Tommy because he was a strong character, as @TSSL and @ParrotWatcher (and others) pointed out. It gave real impact to opening the door for him on day 2.


I still think he’s excessively-fawned over, but he is an interesting character at least, so that helps make up for the fawning somewhat.


I agree… Tommy is a valuable ally if we treat him well, i show him kindness when dealing with his mother … and he is now my fiercely loyal lieutenant , not only he nominated me for leadership… he will stand by my side and endorse all my decisions :slight_smile: