(SPOILERS!!!!!) Ra's al Ghul choice.

[KnightKombat]

Did you give him the cure or did you destroy the Lazarus Machine?

I personally destroyed the Lazarus Machine because it just felt right and he, technically, didn't let him die. If anything, Isn't Batman granting Ra's wish? All he really was now was just a man who had nothing left and was consumed with hate.

[Crimsomrider]

Out of that entire mission, the only thing that felt wrong was the dialogue between Batman and Alfred which felt forced by the developers and did not come off as natural. Simply because I don't think there was any reason for a moral dillema.

Destroy the machine and let the man finally die by a natural process or let him prolong his life via unnatural means to keep on terrorizing and killing others (If you let him live, he kills Talia's sister) and vanishes.

That dialogue especially comes off weird because in Arkham City, Batman says and I quote ; "I told Ra's to shut his pit down... He has grown addicted to it and I'll come back to break that addiction".

Destroying the pit is the right choice though.

[KnightKombat]

Originally posted by Crimsomrider:

Out of that entire mission, the only thing that felt wrong was the dialogue between Batman and Alfred which felt forced by the developers and did not come off as natural. Simply because I don't think there was any reason for a moral dillema.

Destroy the machine and let the man finally die by a natural process or let him prolong his life via unnatural means to keep on terrorizing and killing others (If you let him live, he kills Talia's sister) and vanishes.

That dialogue especially comes off weird because in Arkham City, Batman says and I quote ; "I told Ra's to shut his pit down... He has grown addicted to it and I'll come back to break that addiction".

Destroying the pit is the right choice though.

I definitely agree with that. Letting him live longer would just bring about more pain and destruction to Gotham. I, personally, saw no problem with picking that choice the first time I did the mission because, let's be honest here, Ra's was on life support at this point in time.

[Turner D Century]

I gave him the cure because that's what Batman would have done

[bgray9054]

Destroyed the cure because it made the most sense given Batman's 2 choices and his history. No matter what choice he makes death happens, so destroying the cure made the most sense to me.

[Lac3y]

Saved Ra's because it was the Batman thing to do. Batman doesn't kill. And the developer's punished you for choosing that, which really pissed me off.

[Unc Midi]

Originally posted by Lac3y:

Saved Ra's because it was the Batman thing to do. Batman doesn't kill. And the developer's punished you for choosing that, which really pissed me off.

This.

[halbermensch999]

Originally posted by Crimsomrider:

Out of that entire mission, the only thing that felt wrong was the dialogue between Batman and Alfred which felt forced by the developers and did not come off as natural. Simply because I don't think there was any reason for a moral dillema.

Destroy the machine and let the man finally die by a natural process or let him prolong his life via unnatural means to keep on terrorizing and killing others (If you let him live, he kills Talia's sister) and vanishes.

That dialogue especially comes off weird because in Arkham City, Batman says and I quote ; "I told Ra's to shut his pit down... He has grown addicted to it and I'll come back to break that addiction".

Destroying the pit is the right choice though.

Good analysis. One must also take into consideration that it falls into the wrong hands, like for instance Batman/Joker persona.. all hell would break loose and it would continue on and on and on.

[leemicah61]

Destroy the machine. The guy is already dying and the Lazarus Pitt made it even worse.

[Lac3y]

Originally posted by Crimsomrider:

Out of that entire mission, the only thing that felt wrong was the dialogue between Batman and Alfred which felt forced by the developers and did not come off as natural. Simply because I don't think there was any reason for a moral dillema.

Destroy the machine and let the man finally die by a natural process or let him prolong his life via unnatural means to keep on terrorizing and killing others (If you let him live, he kills Talia's sister) and vanishes.

That dialogue especially comes off weird because in Arkham City, Batman says and I quote ; "I told Ra's to shut his pit down... He has grown addicted to it and I'll come back to break that addiction".

Destroying the pit is the right choice though.

Everything you said could have been applied to countless Batman villains. Batman could kill them all and prevent death and suffering. That's the entire conceit of Batman: his moral choice not to kill often leads to more death and suffering. And Batman has to live with that.

And yes there was a moral dilemma. Alfred's weak justifications that Ra's had already died countless times, and therefore Batman "killing" him by ripping away his life support wasn't immoral was the perfect justification to save Ra's, because Alfred's argument came across as weak, callous and short-sighted.

Hell, in Arkham City Joker was dying of a disease of his own making, yet Batman still said at the end he would have saved Joker and given him the cure. That is Batman. It doesn't matter who you are or how down you are, he'll do his best to save you. Even if that decision leads to more death.

"Do you want to know something funny? Even after everything you've done...I would have saved you."

So no, the "right" choice in regards to Batman was to save Ra's, take him into custody, whatever. He's Batman. He's a genius who can formulate plans further than "meh, you can die". He could have saved Ra's whilst neutralising him and saving Nyssa. Like he has in countless other plots.

Also, using hindsight and information the player could not have been aware of the first time playing to bolster your argument is a terrible argument.

[Crimsomrider]

Originally posted by Lac3y:

Originally posted by Crimsomrider:

Out of that entire mission, the only thing that felt wrong was the dialogue between Batman and Alfred which felt forced by the developers and did not come off as natural. Simply because I don't think there was any reason for a moral dillema.

Destroy the machine and let the man finally die by a natural process or let him prolong his life via unnatural means to keep on terrorizing and killing others (If you let him live, he kills Talia's sister) and vanishes.

That dialogue especially comes off weird because in Arkham City, Batman says and I quote ; "I told Ra's to shut his pit down... He has grown addicted to it and I'll come back to break that addiction".

Destroying the pit is the right choice though.

It doesn't matter who you are or how down you are, he'll do his best to save you.

He was willing to sacrifice the entire prison population of Arkham City in order to save Talia and only because of intervention from Alfred and Barbara, he did not go after her. So... there goes the "he'll do his best to save people no matter what". There's also the fact that he indirectly killed Joker by not allowing him to jump into the Lazarus, which would have SAVED him. Instead, he destroyed the Lazarus because a cured, but life prolonged Joker would be a problem.

Batman is not perfect and Arkham Batman is not the same as the cartoons or the movies or comics. I played my playthrough as the ARKHAM Batman would and in Arkham City, he said he'll shut the lazarus pit himself if Ra's doesn't, so I'm just continuing what the character wanted to do.

There's simply good written stories and bad written stories. And there are good stories with parts that make no sense. And this is one of them. Batman can't save people from old age and that is why this part in the DLC makes no sense. All of a sudden creating a moral dilema where there shouldn't be any just for the drama. DO I NEED TO REMIND you that ALFRED accepted Poison Ivy's death and justified it by saying "atleast she died doing what's right". And now he's creating some moral dillema in the DLC because a criminal with unnatural life span is about to hit the sack because he's too old? And the only way to "save him from old age" is to prolong his life? Bad story telling. Writters conviniently forgot the fact that letting Ra's have his unnaturally prolonged life will cause more death of innocent people and Batman apparently only cares that Ra's doesn't die from old age... bad writting I'm telling you. DLCs always have the tendency to forget the main plot and the small details with it. That's why they always feel so disconnected from the vanilla content.

The whole point of Arkham Knight is to make sure the city is safe before Knightfall, therefore it is quite lacking if he lets one of the biggest villains simply escape to form another League of Assassins. Everyone else gets locked up but the leader of the assassins gets away ? I don't think so.

If he destroy the Lazarus Pit, Nyssa lives, League of Asassins leaves Gotham for good, Ra's finally gets caught up by nature's normal process and nobody dies. Not the right choice ?

If he prolongs his life, Nyssa dies, League of Assassins is back in Gotham, innocents are in danger. And apparently the Knightfall protocol is a GO even though there's a master criminal forming another genocide for Gotham ? I really don't think so. It breaks the complete continuity of the game because the whole point is to ensure that Gotham is safe.

[HippeusOmega]

I chose to destroy the machine. Sometimes not saving a person is the lesser of 2 evils in my book.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=581791367

[Sabbat-X]

Rant incoming, fans of modern Batman go get a sharp instrument.

The whole 'that's what Batman would have done' is idiotic. You're outright saying Batman will adhere to an arbitrary moral standard no matter the circumstances or consequences. That's not a person who should have any amount of power. Where the hell did this come from, any way? I know Batman kills (mostly with reason) in the comics. Is it the movie universe where they warped him like this?

I mean, they bang on and on about how Batman draws this line in the sand and will never, ever cross it, no matter what, but that's not as commendable or as strong as they seem to think it is. Setting up an arbitrary boundary and then defining yourself by it only makes you seem weak. He seems more afraid of the complexity and nuance that comes from discarding this blanket rule. So, he's reasoned himself into 'allowing' Ras Al Ghul to die. So whats to stop him from similar 'reasoning' with other villains? Maybe now he'll actually have to think and apply reason and logic to his work and deal with the consequences that will inevitably come from bad calls he'll make.

And the worst thing is, those bad calls that will eventually happen will be LESS of an issue compared to the consequences of his adhering to this golden rule, he's just retconned those consequences in his head. Oh, all those people that died because I didn't risk lethal force on a perp and my hesitation allowed him to escape? No, that's just the scum of Gotham, it's their fault. I don't have any part of that. But actively trying to stop these crooks, up to and including lethal force? Yeah, suddenly you have lost lives on your conscious that you can't just ignore. If Batman wasn't such a weak little child afraid of consequence, he wouldn't have to hide from that.

But no, we have an insane, near immortal ninja on magic swamp juice life support, and all you have to do is pull out the plug and walk away. The League will never come back to Gotham! You did it Bats, you won, and all you had to do was allow a dying man you can't save anyway to just die, like he has been for hundreds of years, and will continue to for hundreds of years. This... shouldn't be a moral conundrum for you. But because you've built up so much on this completely arbitrary moral standard and refuse to ever alter it, you're actually considering saving a dead man who you know will kill those under your protection, in ways you know you can't predict and stop.

Beliefs inform actions. Be prepared to amend your beliefs.

[Roast Goose]

Originally posted by Lac3y:

Saved Ra's because it was the Batman thing to do. Batman doesn't kill. And the developer's punished you for choosing that, which really pissed me off.

This is wishful thinking, but maybe it was deliberate. Outside of "It's what Batman would do," choosing to actively save Ra's after Arkham City and knowing that he gets worse after each dose of Lazuras is kinda dumb. Batman has to learn that his moral code will not always yield the best results.

I can understand keeping other criminals alive; maybe Gotham has dealt them a very bad hand and batman sees opportunity to save them. This could apply to the supervillains to some extent, too, particularly Harvey. Joker was never going to be saved and didn't want to be. Ra's is over 600 years old and has access to many resources which he has used to hurt people his whole life. He's not going to change. Extending his life further so he can do more of the same is dishonourable and idiotic.

[Stormspark]

To be honest, which choice is "right" depends on which Batman you're talking about. Different writers have written Batman in different ways. For the Arkhamverse Batman, whose code is "always save a life", he would choose to save Ra's no matter what the cost. This is confirmed by Nyssa, who says "You stubborn fool, that's why she loved you'.

The Nolanverse Batman, however, would say "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" and destroy the machine.

[𝑺𝒄𝒉𝒘𝒂𝒚]

Destroyed it,it made the most sense plus I was wearing the Christain Bale suit to I had to.