Hi. I could use some feedback on a moral quagmire my MC finds himself in. In brief, the character has discovered long ago that he carries a fatal plague of some kind, that he is inexplicably immune to. <1-5% of those infected survive, after horrible and agonizing illness. He only realized that he is a carrier after slowly noticing that death follows him where ever he goes - finding the villages he'd visited within the last couple months decimated or completely eradicated. Things like that. He has... a lot on his conscience. This has led to him wandering the wilderness for years, avoiding people as much as humanly possible. However, at one point in the story, he's so weak with hunger, thirst and sick with a festering wound, that there's no way he'd be able to survive on his own much longer, let alone travel to a nearby settlement if he didn't start moving soon. He knows full well that anyone he comes in contact with will almost certainly die. Slowly, painfully. So basically, the dilemma is between A: him dying alone, or B: wiping out a whole settlement, while relying on their generosity to survive. In the context of the story, short of a deus ex machina, there are really no other alternatives. Feedback in general would be appreciated, but specifically I'm wondering what you would do? What do you think most people would do? What would you think of someone who took the former, or latter options? What kind of person would do either? Etc. I'm trying to gauge reader reactions, resulting judgments, etc. Thank you. Edit: To state the (hopefully) obvious, I'm not asking someone to answer this for me, nor do I intend to base the "resolution" on what responses I get. Just lookin' for feedback. And yeah, I realize that this is pretty abstract without deeper context or knowing the MC better.