@Sid
Here’s a hint; to get the greatest DH achievement, you’ve gotta have 16+ health at the end.
I’ve recently decided to take out the choices allowing you to kill your enemies. I kept it in because I thought readers who wanted to do that should be allowed to, but I realized that it was hiding way too much good content. After all, if your enemies are dead, you can’t interact with them in anyway afterwards.
Well that is the natural consequence of killing someone. 
@Shoelip
Unless you’re a necrophile xD but yeah…expect an update to TotDH soon.
Oh :(( I want to kill them could i poison them and later sell them like slaves?
I mean why my character could desire keep them alive? Maybe they offer me money in exchange their lives?
@poison_mara
I’ll certainly add more choices in there. You just won’t be allowed to kill them. I realized it’d suck for so many characters (Falcon, Emira, Illusia/Illucio, Venefira and Hestia) to not be reocurring for some readers.
Yeah i understand that just give enough reasons to justify it in game like they could have some intel you need to track demon?
@poison_mara
Of course. Here are the reasons I’m gonna give. You keep them alive to:
1.) Redeem them
2.) Get a higher bounty
3.) Interrogate them
This is going really well 
even though you won’t be able to kill your enemies, you can still showcase your hatred of them. For example, you can choose to permanently injure Emira by breaking her leg at the knee. No matter what you decide, though, everyone will get to see a little bit more of Venefira, Hesita, Illucio/Illusia, and Emira.
It seems odd that you’d be able to kill some opponents without remorse, but aren’t given the choice to kill others–that removes one of the few opportunities for character-building in a combat oriented game like this one (and I can’t see you retconning the game to give all demon hunters a Batman-style code of nonlethal violence). I imagine that it’ll draw several “this is supposed to be a choice game but I couldn’t do what I wanted” complaints.
The choice to permanently cripple an enemy while leaving them alive is a strong expression of both cruelty and hubris – it’s definitely not equivalent to killing them, which need not be an expression of either.
If you really want the choice to kill gone, I’d suggest inventing a literally compelling reason. Maybe your arch-enemy is able to bestow a special Mark-of-Cain style spell on some of its servants, such that killing them will destroy the person who causes their deaths; until you’ve dealt with your arch-enemy or found the Grand McGuffin of Light in some later book, the best you can do with these elite foes is render them helpless in some nonlethal way.
Alternatively, you can allow people to kill some or all of them at the cost of missing out on content. That adds to replay value, in my opinion. Just pop in an achievement for “redeemed Venefira” or “romanced Emira” or “slaughtered all foes,” so people who finish the game on one path realize that they missed another story.
@Havenstone
Who can you kill without remorse? The only one you have to kill now is Sarrivan and it’s absolutely necessary because he controls the castle. If he was alive, he could kill you remotely. Not to mention he has no “soul”
And I agree, it is cruel. The reasoning, though, is that she won’t be able to commit crimes in the future. And this option is for the readers who’d choose that they became a demon ${hunter} because they hate villains and agents of the dark. People would actually complain if they could only do “good” things like redeeming them.
And there is a “redeemed the assassins” achievement. As for leaving the option to kill your enemies in there, I’d rather not, as it takes out character interaction for volumes to come and really isn’t worth it. I got a feeling that the only people who killed all their enemies were the ones who complained that the characters didn’t have enough development.
Do demon hunters only kill the soulless? If so, good to make that clear (and the reason why). There’s an interesting implication that only beings with a soul can be redeemed–do vampires and other true demons lack free will? Are their lives worthless? What is the “soul” in the gameworld, anyway?
I don’t remember why it’s vital to take out the controller of the castle, but I’ll happily take your word for it. But I suspect many of your readers will also consider it vital to kill the superpowered evil assassins who are actively hunting you on behalf of the Big Bad.
If I left the witch assassins alive, it would be because I was really merciful and was willing to risk my life for a chance at redeeming them. (A very slim chance, surely, weighed against a major risk). If I hated the dark, or just wasn’t exceptionally kind, there’s no way I’d let them live. They were actively trying to ambush and kill me, and could easily have succeeded if they understood my capacities and limitations a little better–as they presumably will the second time round.
I’d interrogate them and kill them. If circumstances meant I only had time to do one of the above, I’d kill them. I certainly wouldn’t hand them over for a bounty. Nor would I cripple them, Emira-style, and walk away–that’s hubristic as well as cruel, and makes no sense for my character for the same reason it’s attractive to the author: we’re likely to see them again.
If you really want to leave out the option (and fair enough, I sympathize as an author) the necessity of not killing them should be every bit as clear as the necessity of killing Sarrivan.
@Havenstone
I wasn’t saying that all soulless deserve to die, just that it’s a contributing factor. He traded his sympathy and empathy for power. And demons have souls, actually.
It’s vital because Sarrivan controls the castle. If he was alive, he could easily spring traps everywhere you went.
The difference between the assassins and Sarrivan is that Sarrivan poses a threat even after he’s defeated.
For many characters, they’d keep them alive for the higher bounty.
And I really do want to leave that option there, but like I said I believe that it wouldn’t be worth allowing the reader to kill Emira, Hestia, Venefira, Illucio/Illusia and Falcon and the bandits. Sure, they might not be able to do exactly what they want, but that’s a fair trade considering they’d otherwise hardly interact with their enemies initially, let alone see them in future volumes.
One of the reasons to keep them alive, not including the higher bounty and redeeming them, is to interrogate them. After you’ve done so, you’re no longer in the heat of the battle and they’re defeated and paralyzed at your feet. At that point, therre really is no dire need to kill them.
Btw, I would never permanently injure soneone. That’s there for readers who’d play as a MC who detests the darkness and has no mercy for his/her enemies.
Also, you aren’t given the option to cripple the assassins, nor do you just walk away from Emira. And I wouldn’t call it “crippling.” It’s not like she’d be in wheel chair. She’d just have a bad gait.
Of course you wouldn’t permanently injure someone, any more than I would. When I wrote “I” in paras 3-4 above, please read that as “my demon hunter character.”
Some characters would indeed consider other things more important than killing the assassins: inflicting pain on them, getting money, trying to redeem/romance them. All those characters are plausible, but I suggest that they would have to be extraordinary in some way – in their cruelty, greed, or compassion – to put their own lives at risk by letting the assassins survive their failed ambush.
I may well be forgetting something – perhaps your gameworld has reliable life imprisonment for magic-users? – but I’m not yet convinced that the threat ends with the assassins’ defeat. They’re meant to be very powerful, right? I agree that it would take more ruthlessness to kill them in cold blood, post-interrogation; but the need to prevent future ambushes remains real. If the story’s written in a way that simply discounts that risk, it makes the combat feel threatless – are you really powerful enough and the witches weak enough that you can shrug off the odds of them getting the drop on you more successfully?
At any rate, whether or not you agree that killing the assassins is the most sensible response, it’s certainly a sensible response… and ruling out sensible responses by authorial fiat is likely to elicit frustrated reviews. Just see how many people had an allergic reaction to Heroes Rise because they felt railroaded into making bad decisions for the sake of plot drama later. Or in my case, how many people initially had a negative reaction to Choice of Rebels because the only aristocratic choices I’d written were for an idealist who wanted to free the helots.
The reward of more interaction with my enemies (here, and in future volumes) is a mixed bag. If they continue to threaten my life, I might be frustrated that the game didn’t allow for the options of effectively removing that threat earlier. Only if I feel that there was some good reason they survived our earlier encounters will I relish the chance of meeting them again.
So I’m not saying you shouldn’t remove the choice to kill them – I’m just suggesting that if you do so, you’d be well advised to come up with a strong in-game reason that that choice is off the table. Do that, and you’ll satisfy not just the bloodthirsty but the pragmatic readers who would otherwise feel frustrated.
I’m going the other route, myself. You get the option to kill Breden and Kalt and many other significant characters in Rebels, to protect yourself against the chance of future betrayal. Keeping them alive gets you more story involving them… at the risk of your story one day ending at their hands if you’re wrong to trust them.
PS: I would definitely call breaking someone’s knee “crippling,” and note that the less it incapacitates her, the more gratuitous the cruelty is. Having a nasty limp doesn’t prevent someone from robbing people at swordpoint or stabbing them in the back. If the justification is preventing Emira from future attacks, it had better put her on a crutch for life (as a shattered knee in medieval times almost certainly would). It’s a cruel response to the situation, suitable for demonhunters of the hate-the-dark, inquisitorial variety.
@Havenstone
The assassins are taken to a high security prison specially made for criminals of the Vermin rank and up. It’s a castle on a remote island surrounded by a moat full of alligators, guarded by heavily trained soldiers and magicians, and presided over by a wizard. I can assure you that they cannot harm you or escape, nor will they.
The Wizard is considered to be of the Sovereign rank, so they’re actually very weak compared to him. Plus, warlocks and witches are bound with silver. This is all stated in the prison scene.
I know; it’s surprising. I actually thought ahead ^^
It’s not that you believe you’re powerful and they’re weak. Actually, they could have easily killed you if they all worked together. An ambush wouldn’t work, as ${boggart} would have sniffed them out, but they could certainly defeat you without the element of surprise.
The point is was that they were so arrogant and sure of their abilities and they assumed you were weak. That was their downfall.
And I was thinking about not being able to run and having to use crutches. I guess that counts, but I wanted to clarify that she wouldn’t have to be in a wheel chair.
i agree completely with @havenstone. medieval fantasy is(if realistic)a dark setting,people don’t kill(just)because their evil or merciless.they kill out of necessity. it is simply, a very dangerous move to let someone live after they have already tried to kill you(in game).
take real life for instance(perhaps a bit strange, considering the genre,but bear with me)
it is not considered wrong(by most)for a soldier to kill a soldier,for a cop to kill a murderer or for a civilian to kill in self defence.
now take into account that 1.you’re a demon hunter/huntress who has dedicated your life to finding, pursuing and eliminating(whether through lethal or non-lethal means)threats.
2.that you have encountered death on a mass level(the village,and presumably other cases) and 3.you are facing 3 witches who are relentlessly trying to murder you.
now under these circumstances i do NOT think that it would take a evil,bad,or even grey morale compass to point you in the direction of killing them(a safer and realistically,much more efficient way to end the threat)
this is not to say that it is necessary to kill the witches,simply that it is certainly a understandable and morally acceptable way to go about the situation.
ps.i’m okay with the option being removed,but i’ll need a really good reason for my character(a guy who tries to use whatever is the safest and most efficient way to dispatch the threat,isn’t concerned about money,and is to much of a pessimist to believe in redemption)to risk sparing their lives.
also if i(my character)did “spare” them he would certainly cripple them(not out of bloodlust,but because it reduces threat)
@AdamGoodTime
It’s certainly not evil to kill them. The issue is that it takes out like 75% of the character development from the first two volumes if you kill Emira, Venefira, Hestia, Illucio/Illusia and Falcon. Not to mention the development in later volumes.
In this case, after you defeat them, you bind them with a silver chain and then take them to a neigh impenetrable fortress.
i get the(out of game)reason for not killing them,i’m simply stating that most people under those circumstances would kill them,and that their needs to be a REALLY good reason not to(especially for morally grey/black characters).
also you take them to the fortress(as you said)AFTER you defeat them.you don’t know going into the fight that taking them alive is going to be realistically possible/safe.
@AdamGoodTime
Well I’d bet most people would want to interrogate/redeem them before killing them anyways. After that, killing them seems like far less of an imminent necessity, especially since, at that point, you know about the fortress.
Still, I see your point, @Havenstone . I’ve actually already submitted the update, but I’ll start working on ways to improve it in the event that people are unsatisfied with it. Still, though, I guarantee you that the vast majority of the people who complained that there wasn’t enough character development were the ones choosing to not have it by killing their enemies.