[joshuakilpatrickl]

They were both survivalists that only cared for one or two people in the group among the rest and both had a bad side to them, though Shane was killed by Rick while Merle went out for the good of the group.

Which one do you think was worse for the group?

[theglassintheguvseye]

Shane, hands down. I have fully developed Merle in my tiny pea brain. Shane makes me feel like I just had a 5mg valium. Merle fascinates me. Merle had "issues". Shane was just wrong. You can work on issues. Wrongness is another thing all together. It is not fixable.

[ConstatMutatio]

I feel that I knew what I was getting with Merle. Shane was plain crazy and unpredictable. I'd rather know what to expect then go into a situation blind. Merle's character kind of became enduring; whereas Shane was unbearably annoying.

[RickGrimeyGrimes]

Shane would have gotten everyone killed by now.

[ButtonsTheHorse]

Shane. I didn't really like Merle, but at least he showed he wanted to be accepted by the group, or at least do good by them. By the end, it seemed he had come to grips with everything wrong he had done in the past and wanted to redeem himself for it. But with Shane it's sort of every last man for themselves.

[the Walkin Dude]

I liked Shane at the beginning, and then he started to turn, I didn't like Merle at the beginning and then he gave his life up for the group. Shane was ready to kill Rick. In this one i have to vote for Merle. Tough decision either way though, good question.

[slimymeteor]

Merle was smart and a strategist, he was a valuable asset if he was on your side. Shane's impulsive and dangerous decisions, on the other hand, would have probably gotten everyone killed by now.

[illuminated]

As much as I used to like Shane, he was totally nuts. His macho attitude and impulsiveness would've killed most of the group by now. He had great survival skills but also zero empathy for anyone but himself. I know you can't always go by emotions, but still I'd feel so much safer near a person who I know would at the very least try to help me out and wouldn't leave me behind. He was basically a silent bomb, very unpredictable, whereas Merle basically was just like a barking dog. He would shout stupid things, act like an asshole but when needed, he proved himself to be a lot better.

[shrike]

If Shane were still alive he'd probably still be suffering the aftereffects of that concussion he gave himself bashing his head against the tree

[Erasure]

I can't answer this poll. Both of them were very bad for the group in different ways. I can't choose between them.

[Ant]

It would have to be Shane. Merle was somewhat unpredictable and untrustworthy, but he redeemed himself in the end. Shane would have gotten the entire group killed in the war with The Gov.

[d2daybreak]

That is a very interesting question. If Shane were still alive, Lori and T-Dog would still be alive because Shane would have killed the prisoners right of the bat. However, we would have lost Glenn and Maggie because Shane would not have gone after them when Merle kidnapped them. As a result, there wouldn't have been a confrontation with TG or WB. However, if Rick hadn't handcuffed Merle to the roof, he and Daryl were going to rob the camp.

Which shows that neither one was really good for the group. Both were for themselves. For Shane, that meant the survival of Lori, Carl, and the baby. For Merle that meant the survival of Daryl. Basically, they protected those who they perceived as family.

That being said, once Daryl perceived the whole group as family and Merle saw that they felt the same way (i.e. Carol threatening Merle to protect Daryl in the deleted scene), Merle saw the value in protecting the whole group. Also, Merle had demonstrated that he could follow someone else's lead. He followed TG and was willing to follow Rick once he saw the value in it. Merle didn't go against Rick in giving up Michonne. In fact, Rick told Merle that is what they should do. Merle just felt Rick would waiver and Rick did. Merle just did what TG had him doing, which was the dirty work. In the end, Merle couldn't do it anymore than Rick could have showing he was redeemable and would sacrifice himself for others--a different type of tough job. Shane killed Randall showing that he wasn't redeemable. So, my final analysis is that Shane was worse for the group in the end.

[Mary Mayhem]

This is a no brainer for me!

As far as i'm concerned, Merle was not a danger to the group... in the beginning he was obviously a bit... rough... but to this day i'm not sure why they took him on that run to Atlanta in the first place if he was so "untrustworthy"... but his character wasn't the person we saw on that roof, it was the person we saw drive that car, music on full blast straight into a field of killers in order to try and save his brother and the group...

And I have to say I think if Glen and Maggie had taken Merle to Daryl when he asked, that's all that would have happened... his loyalty was always with his brother, he was only with the Governor in order to survive.

Merle was actually my favorite character... he was a misunderstood lone wolf who would do anything for his brother - and he did... underneath the mask he put on, he had a big heart... but when you grow up having to be tough and you learn at a young age to defend only yourself and that you can't trust anyone outside of yourself and your brother, you're going to come off as being a villain... and that just wasn't the case with Merle... he felt alienated, he didn't know how to trust others because he was never given a reason to trust anyone... quite the opposite actually. And still in his final moments he showed that he really did care for not only his brother, but for the group... he knew he would more than likely pay the ultimate price for it, and he did it anyway... to protect his brother and the group... and if nothing else, THAT shows how big of a heart he hid...

So yeah, I wanna say more but I can't say enough about 'em... Merle was extremely misunderstood... and I miss him a lot. I will stop typing about him before I begin to cry lol.



As for Shane? he lost it and couldn't control his emotions, and almost killed his best friend on multiple occasions... Shane was good when thinking tactically, but that was it... and as much as you need that in a zombie apocalypse, you also need to be able to trust everyone in your group to be there for each other and help each other rather than having to constantly worry that one will turn on you... there are so many reasons as to why he was more of a danger to the group than an asset.

[theglassintheguvseye]

D2D and MM both make excellent points. I think that Shane sent Merle to Atlanta so that he and Daryl would not be together with much of the group gone. I think Shane had enough instinct to know that Merle and Daryl had not the best intentions. Yes, an affirmed Shane hater just gave him credit for something there. Still, like MM said, Merle's problems were not innate, they were ingrained. Shane was just not a good person. Had Merle been raised differently, he'd have been a decent person, I think. I don't know any Shane back story but feel that he was just a selfish, narcissistic jerk for no reason except that it was his nature. I could be wrong there. Sigh. I freaking miss Merle.