(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.

[Kahvipannu]

Didn't Bat say something like:"Stop using that ♥♥♥♥, or I will brake the machine" in the last game?

Atleast that is what I remember, so it really wasn't hard decission for me.

[bgray9054]

Oprindeligt skrevet af KahvipannuTWC:

Didn't Bat say something like:"Stop using that ♥♥♥♥, or I will brake the machine" in the last game?

Atleast that is what I remember, so it really wasn't hard decission for me.

He just said something like stop what you're doing, or I'll be back for you. May have been referring to the lazarus pit.

[Cosmic Sparrow]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Lac3y:

Oprindeligt skrevet af 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.

You forget, though, that those things he did for villains were mostly cures and not something that could be turned back into a weapon. Giving Ras back the Pit is like giving a criminal a gun and walking away. The real Batman choice would be to find another way to save Ras without giving him back his weapon. Batman always destroys the weapon first, then finds the cure (kinda like how a doctor pulls out shrapnel before repairing the body).

[bobmarius]

Does Batman stalk oldfolkshomes and pick up the ones about to die and throw them in the Lazarus pit? To save old Ra from old age makes no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ sense! And to save him would mean that he owes atleast as much to any old person!

[Roast Goose]

Oprindeligt skrevet af bobmarius:

Does Batman stalk oldfolkshomes and pick up the ones about to die and throw them in the Lazarus pit? To save old Ra from old age makes no ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ sense! And to save him would mean that he owes atleast as much to any old person!

Saving Ra's carries more weight than just him; it's possibly preventing a war breaking out between the assassin factions. Such a war would be devastating for the city. But is prolonging the life of a serial killer zealot a price worth paying?

[Stormspark]

Destroyed it on my main game, gave him the cure on New Game+, so I got to see both endings. The "correct" choice for Batman's character is to destroy it though, no doubt.

[Roast Goose]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Saerydoth:

Destroyed it on my main game, gave him the cure on New Game+, so I got to see both endings. The "correct" choice for Batman's character is to destroy it though, no doubt.

Some argued that the proper choice was saving Ra's, since Batman always saves people even when it's detrimental in the greater scheme of things. However, considering what he was mulling over during Joker's last moments, this would imply that Batman isn't learning anything.

[Stealth_LIEOS]

i know its been a while but i just wanna share, i chose to save Ra's.
Batman in Arkham series is different and perhaps too stubborn (which leads to the death of others), he have many chances to let evil people die BUT he chose not to (till we have the chance to decide that in BAK).
Knowing Batman in Arkham series, and what happened in BAA, BAC, BAO, with the Arkham comics and with his stubbornness, he possibly would save Ra's.
I remember what he said to Ra's in BAC, but we all know Batman in Arkham series always just says but dont actually act beyond his ONE rule. BUT who knows, maybe something changed in Batman in BAK and decided to do the opposite, just for a bit of taste, perhaps.
ANYWAY, as i mentioned: i chose to save Ra's. because that was what Batman in Arkham series have done and will always be there to stop Ra's or other evils.
Then i discovered the "Knightfall Protocol" ending, and then i wonder: what about all those loose ends?
And judging by the "Knightfall Protocol" ending, tells us: when/where ever the evil exists, Batman and his legacy will forever be there to stop it. So, feel free to save Ra's.

BUTT that's just my oppinions.

[Roast Goose]

Oprindeligt skrevet af StealthLIEOS:

...but we all know Batman in Arkham series always just says but dont actually act beyond his ONE rule. BUT who knows, maybe something changed in Batman in BAK and decided to do the opposite, just for a bit of taste, perhaps.
ANYWAY, as i mentioned: i chose to save Ra's. because that was what Batman in Arkham series have done and will always be there to stop Ra's or other evils.

I think one of the reasons I chose to destroy the machine was to go with the idea that Batman is actually learning something from the past. If you save Ra's, he kills Nyssa. Where have we seen that before?

[Stealth_LIEOS]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Roast Goose:

Oprindeligt skrevet af StealthLIEOS:

...but we all know Batman in Arkham series always just says but dont actually act beyond his ONE rule. BUT who knows, maybe something changed in Batman in BAK and decided to do the opposite, just for a bit of taste, perhaps.
ANYWAY, as i mentioned: i chose to save Ra's. because that was what Batman in Arkham series have done and will always be there to stop Ra's or other evils.

I think one of the reasons I chose to destroy the machine was to go with the idea that Batman is actually learning something from the past. If you save Ra's, he kills Nyssa. Where have we seen that before?

the choices are on us, it's us (the players) as Batman is actually learning something from the past, NOT Batman is actually learning something from the past.
We dont know what Batman in Arkham series would do, however, i do remember he'd kill some characters... in... others... comic versions...
BUT what i do know: is "Knightfall Protocol" ending, it tells us to not worry, Gotham will forever has a guardian

[TheGrimReaper00]

Still I don't think this is actually killing Ra's, it's just destroying his pit.
He said in Arkham City to get rid of it or he'll be back to do it for him.

He did it again at the end of Arkham City and here you have the choice to actually destroy it.

Batman isn't killing him. He's just no saving him.

[TheGrimReaper00]

And yes I know destroying the pit ends up with the same result but Ra's actually dies of old age

[WZ]

Saved him because it was what (this particular incarnation of) Batman would do. I am well aware it is stupid thanks ^^ But Batman is a stubborn idiot with that - as was demonstrated dozens upon dozens of time during this series. Nice to offer the option for some character growth - just not very credible.

[Roast Goose]

Oprindeligt skrevet af WZ:

Saved him because it was what (this particular incarnation of) Batman would do. I am well aware it is stupid thanks ^^ But Batman is a stubborn idiot with that - as was demonstrated dozens upon dozens of time during this series. Nice to offer the option for some character growth - just not very credible.

He still doesn't let Nyssa run him through with her sword and gets him to GCPD on a gurney. I think that fits quite well.

[The Brown Hornet]

Oprindeligt skrevet af 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.

Agreed