Killing vs Non-lethal neutralisation of key targets.

[Julius]

I personally think some of the non-lethal are pretty sadistic compared to a quick kill.

lets see:

Overseer Campbell-banned to the flooded district with his heretics brand,becoming a weeper and probably dying anyways.

The pendeltons-get their tounges cut out and enslaved in their own mines,lovely.

Lady boyle-Being trapped by a stalker,arguably one of the less horrifying neutralisations.

Lord regent-get sent to coldridge,probably executed for his crimes anyways.

Daud-Leaving the City(probably the only clear good non-lethal ending.

Havelock-being sent to coldrige too,maybe executed or imprisoned for life.or not.

But hey,at least corvo didnt kill them!

[DogMeat]

Almost all of them are poetic justice... this is what these people have done to others. Some of them may have even gotten off easy... for example the developers actually felt they had let Lady Boyle off easily in the non-lethal method as they suggest she is the type that will easily manipulate him. Some of them could potentially escape their fates and perhaps change... but... probably not.

[BlackWater]

Wonders what would happen if you possessed the the former spymaster and turned in the evidence from the safe while in his body, that would be good for laughs.

[Puppy Cat Underfoot]

Campbell always dies, even if you non-lethal him. Either he dies from plague, or Corvo's conscious bugs him about it and he drives his sword through him in the Flooded District.

[Julius]

Originally posted by Evil Puppy Cat:

Campbell always dies, even if you non-lethal him. Either he dies from plague, or Corvo's conscious bugs him about it and he drives his sword through him in the Flooded District.

probably,but in the endcutscene of the good ending the new elixer from piero and sokolov can even cure weepers,so if ther is a 1% chance he makes it.thependeltons could die in their mines aswell from exhaustion.