I finished the game late last night, but when i got to the part when Dauds crew finds me in the river and captures me, Daud said something like "i dont know who you fight for so i cant take that chance" or something like that. When i had the chance to kill him i decided not to, onyl because i cant decide.

is Daud a bad guy? Yes his crew did kill the empress but maybe it was for a good cause? Maybe Daud and his crew are trying to get rid of the corrupt men in power?

I dont know, maybe im thinking to much into it but it made me think about it for a while.




Also on a side note

On the mission where you kill cambell and save whats her names Uncle, when your done in the mansion and go outside to meet Samuel, i looked up to one of the roof tops that you cant get to in game and i think i saw one of Dauds men blink away.....Im not sure though cause it was literally for less than a second that i saw him. Anyone else see this happen before?

They are a group of assassins, so I would say bad.



http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1416441-hidden-smoke-man/

He killed the empress because he was payed to do it, plain and simple

But he seems to regret that decision, when you meet him.

So wether he is good or bad, depends on what you judge morality by: Actions, or sentiment.

I would say that he wasn't good or bad. He is leader of a group of assassin's so he's obviously not good, but he seems to regret his actions which means he might not be completely bad.

I think the context is a bit skewered because Dunwall is such a corrupt hellhole. Daud is probably hired to kill nobility and important people for the most part and given what we've seen of them, the vast majority are no great loss. Killing the Empress, a mother right in front of her child who was much beloved by her people and replaced by a tyrant seems to have affected him.

As alot of people said killing the empress had a massive affect on him, meaning being good or bad, he is a man of conscious.

he is the leader of a group of assassin's so not necessarily good, just pay for hire guys. But he did regret killing the empress when you hear the recording on his table when he says he would pay back all the money and stab the lord regent in the eye if he could for telling him to kill her and that no one should have killed her. Maybe he was in favour of killing all the corrupt fellas in the government and thought the empress was too only to regret later. Maybe thats why he didn't finish off Corvo too and kept him prisoner.

I recall there being a note somewhere, saying that since they have you alive they are going to negotiate a higher price before turning you in.

Are we seriously going to have a moral debate whether or not Daud and his assassins are evil? First of all, good and evil are extremely abstract and vague terms and even Ethics (the discipline that studies them) says that they don't really exist in our lives. Second, no, they are not, they are just running a business that involves killing people. They don't care who it is just as long as they get paid. So no, they aren't.

Oh yes saw it now!
yes in the end whatever they are bunch of people who kill for money

They are obviously skilled enough to easily dispatch nobles and Emperor/Emperess', and I think that's what they do. The rulers of Dunwall are usually corrupt, so I think what they do might even be good for the city. Apart from when the Empress was killed and replaced with some corrupt guy.

|Slightly off topic but does anybody know where the blueprints for the Sticky Grenades are in Daud's HQ?

From a utilitarian moral philosophy standpoint killing the empress was not evil if Daud thought it could save Dunwall or make Dunwall better/safer due to stronger leadership. However the Regent is on the extreme opposite side of the empress. It is a simple "The dosage makes the poison" comparison as a too kind/naive leader is not good for a country, but a selfish and cruelt tyrant sure as hell doesent work either. A good middleground is needed and imo neither the empress or the Regent was fit to rule. But this personal viewpoint is, I admit, a weak argument. Because you dont get to know them well enough to take an educated guess on a final outcome if they both got the chance unaffected by Corvo as a factor.

Edit: As an example, the empress could have succeeded. And the regent too even though his methods are inhumane and cruel. If you take maximum survivors as the "best" outcome then killing off and isolating the plague could have saved more than how the empress wouldve solved it (long term) but that doesent mean that the empress wouldnt have been able to deal with it aswell. But how I see it the empress was unable to make the tough decisions needed. The problem with the regent was ofcourse that he went too far and seemed to take personal pleasure in ridding the city of the poor as saving Dunwall was only secondary to him.

Evil and good isnt black and white, but complex. And the law does not by any means equal "Good". If you think following the law is good, and all who break it is evil - then you should see/read Les Miserables.

Because Daud and The Whalers were just a tool of The Lord Regent good or bad doesn't enter into it, Once you move past the principle that killing people is wrong everything becomes subjective.

I'm pretty sure that killers for hire qualify as evil in many people's books, business or not. Evil doesn't just stop at puppy kicking malevolent. If that were the case, the mob wouldn't be bad.

Still, I think the Lord Regent's tyranny went a long way to convincing Daud he'd made a mistake. People like Pendleton ignore or abuse the poor while people like the Lord Regent want to actively annihilate them. It's the difference between Napoleon and [insert genocidal nutbar of your choice].

BTW, there's no indication the Empress was weak in her leadership.

Thankfully many people don't create facts, rather open-minded individuals that see both sides of the coin become aware of them. Even in a black and white world, "evil" is pretty much a meaningless term. It's an abstract notion that only exists because the powers of authority labeled it so. There is also a fine line between evil and injustice, guess which one the mob falls under.

Daud realized the consequences of his actions because he can actually think for himself and isn't bothered by trivial things. I let him live after the battle because he was aware of the weight of his actions and the meaning behind it all. He even questions concepts that would otherwise be deemed "unbreakable" by society, yet he tears them apart by giving examples with real life, personal to Corvo events.

Death is natural, Daud and his assassins are tools used for political gain by the Lord Regent, they are not the ones at fault. It can be argued that the very existence of these men is the summation of the word "evil", but if that were the case then I suggest you fix the world first before arguing metaphysical and loose terms.

On my first playthrough, the only one I killed was Daud. Why? Well,

1). This man killed the Empress (who was very dear to me) and was responsible for abducting Emily. That is regicide and high treason - no doubt punishible by death in any Empire.
2) A man like Daud, an assassin for hire with supernatural abilities is far to dangerous to be allowed to live.
3) I could not carry him to the authorities and turn him in (and I detest torture).

So after putting all his minions to sleep, I Killed him quickly and cleanly enough by sneaking up on him from behind and plunging my blade in him.

Contradiction ho! You detest torture yet you condemned the other targets to torture, nice one.

He is the man who killed her, yes, but it could have been any one of the assassins. The order to kill her was made by Lord Regent and you spared his life. So you too blame the tool and not the user it seems.

Not to mention you didn't have the courage to face him. It seems there is no honor among the two faced.

The statement in bold would be acceptable if it wasn't the lord regent that brought the plague to Dunwall in the first place to kill the poor. as for Daud i would place him in a Lawful Neutral alignment in D&D terms. To him, when the outsider gave him his powers, assassination was just his way to survive. It was all he knew how to do so he did it well, but the fact that he can look back and see what he has done and has remorse because of it, is the reason i spared him.

Another thing i found interesting about Daud is that he also regrets what has happened to Corvo. In his journal upstairs he talks about how he and Corvo are from the same island country, and he kind of identifies with Corvo. it also seems like he was forced into being an assassin by society and the Outsider.

At least that's what I gathered from his books and what he says.

Nietzsche theory is notable because the Overman ignores society's definitions of good and evil then CREATES HIS OWN. A thinking and open-minded individual is quite capable of labeling people like the Lord Regent scum.

I was watching the cutscene where Samuel apologised to Corvo and left him drifting on a boat when Daud's men spotted him. I told myself "Thanks alot Samuel...you seriously ruined Corvo's day... u left him on a drifting boat to save him but it turns out Corvo just got himself drifted into the hands of Daud's weirdos"

How in the world those masked weirdos know Corvo entered their territory? Or its just pure coincidence they spotted him?

I'm on Flooded City right now, so I'm just speculating, but I think it's either:

1) Daud has his assassin buddies everywhere, and Corvo was spotted randomly, or
2) Daud is attuned to others bearing the Outsider's Mark and sensed Corvo's presence,
since they both have it. Kind of how Pokemon trainers know you're a Pokemon trainer, too

He has slain hundreds if not thousands, his reasons don't matter. I sabotaged my own 'clean hands' playthrough on purpose to give him a fitting end, and not let him have his walk into the sunset he wanted.

Exactly. I did the same thing. Him and the torturer are the only ones are the only ones I killed by choice.

In what universe is the head of a gang of hired assasins not evil?

In a world where he kills only "evil" men. And that's just one, I can list many more because "evil" is not definable in our world. Well, it is, but it is still very abstract and meaningless for the most part. I still can't believe that people actually think "good and evil" exists. What, were you schooled by Batman? Even Batman is not "good", he just doesn't kill people.

But you have a choice, and you chose to kill a murderer. Kinda hypocritical isn't it or are you going to justify murder with a "noble cause" instead of taking on the burden of your sins?