User blog comment:Unrulyruby100/Thoughts On Corvo and the Heart/@comment-5607198-20121119070448/@comment-27202257-20121119093427

I actually would call that justice. Corvo isn't arbitrarily sentencing these people according to a theoretical equity between crime and punishment; he's just changing it up so the crime is its own punishment. So really, in the end, Corvo didn't kill them, they killed themselves.

(Again with the exception of Lady Boyle, but I would still blame Brisby for that, not Corvo.)

And yes, it a very good thing that Havelock and Burrows can be dealt with via a trial, but that wouldn't have been possible in the Dunwall we see at the beginning of the game. If Corvo had gone straight to Dunwall Tower and tried to expose Burrows, it probably wouldn't have changed anything: Burrows could have simply escaped prosecution with the help of his very powerful friends, and installed a puppet leader to carry out his wishes while the public thinks he's been brought to justice. The fact that a trial is even possible shows that the balance of power has shifted because Corvo has uprooted Burrows corrupted agents and sponsors.

In the end, it's all a very interesting ethical question of which option is more "right." Not to envoke an internet cliche, but I feel this is a pretty good example--say you had the option to somehow eliminate Hitler. Would it be more ethical to leave him alive (to continue with his genocidal policies), kill him, or doctor his papers to say he's a Jew and have him tossed in a camp? Which of those options is just? Which is morally right?

I think it's a very interesting question, like I said. However, in Corvo's case, I think the low-chaos road is the most merciful and just path available to him. I don't think it makes him a monster, and I don't think it changes how he feels about Jessamine or Emily.

(As for Treavor still owning the mine--well, technically no one owns it now. And good riddance. I never liked that guy. XD)