Technically, Silent Hill: Downpour doesn't have an established canon ending that we know of, and I was always under the assumption that Ending A (Forgiveness), being the "best" possible ending, was supposed to be the choice outcome of the six. But this is about as debatable as whether or not the first two "good endings" for the original Silent Hill (in which Harry leaves the town with Cybil or goes it alone) is canon.
According to the writers, though, they have stated that Murphy in truth did kill Napier in every outcome except for Ending A (source). Regardless of what Sewell says in Ending B, where he states in both A and B, the following line of dialogue is actually a mistake for Truth and Justice:
"Jesus, you're pathetic! What about Napier? The guy kills your boy, you go through all the trouble of getting yourself locked up with him, and what happens? I serve him to you like a fucking Christmas goose, and you can't even finish the job! No, I gotta go in there and finish the bastard off for you."
It really seems strange to me that Sewell would say this, especially in Ending B when you consider the exchange that occurs in a flashback during the game which should be considered canon:
"What do you want me to do?" "What you're good at, of course. Ridding the world of monsters. I got another one for you." "Who is it?" "Don't worry yourself about the details, cupcake. Just take out the garbage like you did before, and we'll be square." "When?" "There's gonna be a little... disturbance tonight. The other guards and me are gonna have our hands full, so no one's gonna notice when you head down to the showers and find your guy waiting for you there, just like last time." "And then?" "Oh, I think you know what comes next. Unless, of course, you're thinking of breaking our deal...?" "And this other guy... he deserves it?"
Why the hell would Sewell tell him he's good at "ridding the world of monsters" if Murphy couldn't finish the job? Why would Murphy ask if this random guy deserves it if he couldn't even kill the man who violated and murdered his own son?
Because the exchange in general plays out like Murphy had already done the deed. He doesn't act like someone who couldn't "finish the job", or would be remotely confident that he could take out a man he doesn't even hold the same level of vitriol against. He would probably feel a lot more nervous at the prospect ("I couldn't kill the last guy, so what makes you think I can kill someone I don't know?").
It would also still negate Sewell's statement that he's apparently "good" at "ridding the world of monsters", if he didn't actually get rid of Napier by his own hands. It's small and a bit more personally justified, but this is also why I tend to play him as being more physically aggressive, because while the option to avoid fights in Downpour is more obvious than previous Silent Hill games, I feel like it's something that the Murphy from Truth and Justice would do. It is, after all, apparently something that he is good at.
During Murphy's confession with the nun at St. Maria's Monastery, he also admits "What I did to Napier didn't solve anything."
Again, seems more like the kind of a thing that someone guilty of killing the man would say.
More also seems to point towards the fact that Murphy did kill Napier in the extra texts of the game:
"Do I feel sorry for [Napier], for what I've done to him? I keep telling myself that he deserved what he got but... the sounds he made... all that blood... the face of absolute terror. Disbelief turned into the understanding of inevitability... all by my own hands... May God forgive me!"
Mind you, the developers also stated that the extra text should be "taken with a grain of salt" as they weren't written by the original writers, but you know what? I'm using them to back up my point, anyway. The way Murphy talks about Napier, it definitely sounds like that's the route that they were going for, because it makes way more sense than saying that he didn't actually kill Napier.
There's also various imagery throughout the game that points towards Murphy being the one who killed Napier. One of the biggest ones being what you see at St. Maria's Monastery:
It should be worth noting that the axe-wielding psychopath is voiced by no other than Murphy himself, and our helpless victim getting the axe sounds a lot like Napier. Additionally, at the Centennial Building, we also see the the Bogeyman laying down the banhammer on Napier through an optional peephole. The Bogeyman is essentially a combination of Napier and Murphy himself. Napier is the monster Murphy sees as he's becoming the monster that he hates and fears the most.
So basically, I simply just don't buy into the fact that Murphy couldn't finish off his son's murderer, and find that the developer's commentary stating the error in Sewell's dialogue in the Truth and Justice ending to fit with the general theme of the game. That Murphy screwed up. He made a mistake. That revenge didn't solve anything, and as a result of killing a man, he's being forced to pay dearly for it. Not just the guilt of killing him, but living with the fact that, as a result, a good man who Murphy thought highly of got caught up in his mess and was killed.
That said, if it's one thing that I'm grateful to Tomm Hulett for (other than ensuring that Silent Hill: Homecoming never became a trilogy), it's him correcting Ending B's error.
Now if only that means they would just fix the Truth and Justice ending dialogue...
Justifying Truth and Justice As Downpour's "Canon" Ending...
According to the writers, though, they have stated that Murphy in truth did kill Napier in every outcome except for Ending A (source). Regardless of what Sewell says in Ending B, where he states in both A and B, the following line of dialogue is actually a mistake for Truth and Justice:
It really seems strange to me that Sewell would say this, especially in Ending B when you consider the exchange that occurs in a flashback during the game which should be considered canon:
Why the hell would Sewell tell him he's good at "ridding the world of monsters" if Murphy couldn't finish the job? Why would Murphy ask if this random guy deserves it if he couldn't even kill the man who violated and murdered his own son?
Because the exchange in general plays out like Murphy had already done the deed. He doesn't act like someone who couldn't "finish the job", or would be remotely confident that he could take out a man he doesn't even hold the same level of vitriol against. He would probably feel a lot more nervous at the prospect ("I couldn't kill the last guy, so what makes you think I can kill someone I don't know?").
It would also still negate Sewell's statement that he's apparently "good" at "ridding the world of monsters", if he didn't actually get rid of Napier by his own hands. It's small and a bit more personally justified, but this is also why I tend to play him as being more physically aggressive, because while the option to avoid fights in Downpour is more obvious than previous Silent Hill games, I feel like it's something that the Murphy from Truth and Justice would do. It is, after all, apparently something that he is good at.
During Murphy's confession with the nun at St. Maria's Monastery, he also admits "What I did to Napier didn't solve anything."
Again, seems more like the kind of a thing that someone guilty of killing the man would say.
More also seems to point towards the fact that Murphy did kill Napier in the extra texts of the game:
Mind you, the developers also stated that the extra text should be "taken with a grain of salt" as they weren't written by the original writers, but you know what? I'm using them to back up my point, anyway. The way Murphy talks about Napier, it definitely sounds like that's the route that they were going for, because it makes way more sense than saying that he didn't actually kill Napier.
There's also various imagery throughout the game that points towards Murphy being the one who killed Napier. One of the biggest ones being what you see at St. Maria's Monastery:
It should be worth noting that the axe-wielding psychopath is voiced by no other than Murphy himself, and our helpless victim getting the axe sounds a lot like Napier. Additionally, at the Centennial Building, we also see the the Bogeyman laying down the banhammer on Napier through an optional peephole. The Bogeyman is essentially a combination of Napier and Murphy himself. Napier is the monster Murphy sees as he's becoming the monster that he hates and fears the most.
So basically, I simply just don't buy into the fact that Murphy couldn't finish off his son's murderer, and find that the developer's commentary stating the error in Sewell's dialogue in the Truth and Justice ending to fit with the general theme of the game. That Murphy screwed up. He made a mistake. That revenge didn't solve anything, and as a result of killing a man, he's being forced to pay dearly for it. Not just the guilt of killing him, but living with the fact that, as a result, a good man who Murphy thought highly of got caught up in his mess and was killed.
That said, if it's one thing that I'm grateful to Tomm Hulett for (other than ensuring that Silent Hill: Homecoming never became a trilogy), it's him correcting Ending B's error.
Now if only that means they would just fix the Truth and Justice ending dialogue...