I can see her performing experiments on children being a much stronger case for her execution, but that's not part of this game, as near as I can tell. Most certainly, if she wasn't acting of her own free volition, most courts/rulers, etc wouldn't hold her entire responsible for what happened. Lucian talking about a "need to execute her"? That sounds like a statement I'd expect from someone who was very mentally imbalanced "the *NEED* to execute" her? There could never be a NEED to execute her unless her living would be a clear and present danger to others. As punishment, execution may be efficacious (considering cost of life imprisonment or likelihood of escape and future deeds if they escape), it may be 'fun' under a sadistic regime, it _
may_ be called for due to the enormity of the crime, but NEED?
That sounds a bit 'mentally unstable'. I read the story summary in your link -- which provides quite a different picture for her execution than this game. Commenting about that:
- First, it really isn't part of this game. It can be claimed to be a justification for actions in this game, but not being part of this game, it can't really be considered a justification.
- Second: even if the external information was take to be part of this game, it was given that her participation was on pain of death -- heavily coerced. If someone is 'controlled', then they are not responsible for their actions. One goes after the 'controller', not the pawn. It would be like yelling at a light switch for turning off the light instead of the person who used the switch.
To hold the switch responsible for having turned off the light and punishing it, is a strong sign of mental problems. - Third, even if one accepted the back-story as part of the game, the in game dialogue doesn't acknowledge it and indicates it was her 'awakening' Damian as being the sole cause for her execution.
- Fourth, if it was a 'legal' execution by the laws of the land, why was it done 'secretly' -- inside with so few witnesses? *Especially*, in earlier days, people were not executed in secret, but publicly for the important reason that it was to be a 'message' and example of what happens to those who violate the laws of the land. By being 'private' it had all the earmarks of being something that couldn't have been done publicly for fear that the public would object, or fear that if it wasn't done 'immediately', a greater force might stop them. It wasn't the action of someone who was supposed to be a 'good guy' or a leader of the people, but of a thug.
As for the actions of Rhode and her extreme antipathy toward me -- show me one example of a
female, in history, who rose through the ranks to be a leader among her people, who's prejudice against a group was so murderous that she would turn upon a former pupil who was found to have 'tainted blood'.
