(01-23-2019, 02:55 PM)irukandji Wrote: I'm talking about this statement:
Quote:And he was willing to give up the world so that he could have his loved ones, as anyone would do in that position.
Nick saved the world. You seemed to be so obsessed with the idea that the others wanted to stay dead as martyrs rather than living good lifes with their children and friends, so it would have been better if Nick waked away as a lonely Grimm after killing Z. There is no conflict. Nick was about to give up the world to get the people he loved back, but instead ended up saving it. The others were killed when they tried to stop Z, just as Nick did – but he could not be killed when he had the stick.
I really do not understand your point. You don't seem to distinguish between the situation before and after killing Z. Nick thought he had to sacrifice everything to get them back. That was wrong. When Z was killed, he had to choose between a world with a lot of dead people and a world were those people did not die (if we assume it was his decision). Why would he be willing to give up a better world just for the “sake of sacrifice”, when it would be a worst outcome for everyone?