13812 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

@ Costin: Lying about being a dragon isn't dishonorable if it's done with good intent in mind.

I have no idea where you both got this idea of Saskia as being so bloodthirsty.

Bloodthirsty? I called her a murderer. She despises monarchs that is a fact well known. She calls Foltest a tyrant and Henselt scum. Are you ignoring what you see before your eyes?! Saskia attacks Foltest and if you fail on the bridge between Monastery and Solar she kills him and Geralt.

This is why I kill her on Iorveth's path. She's too reckless, as someone said in the tavern: She would spit in the Emperor's face if she faced him.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mai 2012 - 05:51 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
She was breathing fire at Foltest for God's sake! And following Geralt and him trying to kill them if it weren't for Geralt. Of course she was trying to kill him. Yes we know what she was doing and what you are trying to do here is just silly.
There is no bloodlust, it's just recklessness and foolish idealism.

You can't prove that she knew it was Foltest, and she never says that she was trying to kill him or that she wanted him dead.  She doesn't mention seeing Geralt there, or apologize for trying to kill him- she could have been attacking troops randomly.

She wants the kings overthrown, but she's not the one crucifying people, unlike the other kings.  It's a hallmark of her character that she is different than they are.  You're always so convinced that your interpretations are the way things are- and it isn't necessarily so.  I'm not even arguing that she wasn't trying to kill Foltest, only that you can't prove she was and it's not certain that she was.

@ Costin: I have no idea who you are talking about.  I think that's a different character entirely.  It's funny that you kill Saskia for being "dangerous" but defend the kings.  P.S. I'd do more than spit in the emperor's face if he's trying to invade my lands.

Then how did Vanhemmar manage to find out?

I can believe Philippa being outwitted, which happened. But to be outplayed when it comes to magic? By an apprentice? Not likely.

Cynthia seems pretty skilled, and obviously not what she appears to be on the surface.  I doubt she's an apprentice at all- the Nilfgaardian mage says that compression magic is a complicated spell.  As for Vanhemmar, if Cynthia was masking, she wouldn't mask for her employers.  I have no idea if that's even possible, but I guess magic is whatever they decide to make it.

Modifié par Addai67, 21 mai 2012 - 07:24 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
You can't prove that she knew it was Foltest

http://media.giantbo...w2_foltest.jpg.

Because it's not obvious that he's the king. She can distinguish between Temerian troops and La Valettes, despite more or less wearing the same armor, but she can't distinguish between a random soldier and a king.

Your interpretation of Saskia is that of a complete and utter moron. And is obviously incorrect.
She pursued Foltest twice, deliberately. She was trying to kill him. Suggesting otherwise is silly.

Cynthia seems pretty skilled, and obviously not what she appears to be on the surface.  I doubt she's an apprentice at all

"Your Imperial Majesty! I hasten to report that the sorcerer Vanhemar has indeed proven right for the role assigned to him. He keeps his apprentice Cynthia on a short leash and displays nothing approaching excessive ambition"

Shilard's First Letter to the Emperor.
Cynthia is Vanhemmar's apprentice.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 mai 2012 - 07:33 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Addai: Saskia is incapable of leading of state on her own, or do you think she can hold her grown against everyone? Do you think Radovid and Henselt will aid her in the fight against NIlfgaard? As I see it the best solution for the North is for her to die on Iorveth's path and for Stennis to live.

Oh yeah she's a nice figurehead and can rally an army but leading a state is more then just a set of ideals, it's implenenting them and Saskia is just not the person to do that, and when it comes down it if one disregards her ideals she is not that different then the kings she fights.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mai 2012 - 08:26 .

[Addai]

She's young and still naive, and her little state never had much of a chance, but she deserves the chance a lot more than those other ****s. Stennis? You think Stennis is better? That's funny.

BTW people like to refer to him as "Prince Penis" but Radovid sounds just like him when he's chiding Saskia that the only crown she deserves to wear is a wreath of flowers. Honestly, the slide with him and Henselt having beers and yuk'ing it up over dividing Temeria makes me sick. It doesn't even make sense in my game for Radovid to make that deal, since he's married to Adda in this game and Henselt was just handed a defeat. He could have taken Temeria all for himself.

@ KoP: What is silly is still arguing the point when it doesn't mean a thing.  I do concede about Cynthia being an apprentice- but it still doesn't prove that Philippa was in on the Triss thing.

Modifié par Addai67, 21 mai 2012 - 08:32 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Stennis won't have his state collapse around him by alienating the nobles and pissing off every neighbouring country which is exactly what Saskia will do. Excuse me if I don't share your naivety in regards to how I view the kings in the north.

As for Adda, you might want to take up with CDPR but I very much doubt Henselt and Radovid are pals, likely they are plotting against each other as they share that drink.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mai 2012 - 08:44 .

[Addai]

No, he'll just ****** off the peasants and be manipulated by nobles who don't respect him. That's much better.

Did you see the end screen of them dividing Temeria? They sure looked chummy. Pfeh.

[Jacek11]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Then how did Vanhemmar manage to find out?

I can believe Philippa being outwitted, which happened. But to be outplayed when it comes to magic? By an apprentice? Not likely.

Sometimes hiding in plain sight works best. Philippa knew Triss was close, but she didn't know she had been compressed thus it never occured to her to look in her own room. She had no reason to pay any attention to the statuette. She probably assumed it was some magical trinket of Cynthia's and never gave it another thought. Vanhemmar found out because unlike Philippa he knew exactly what to look for.

Modifié par Jacek11, 21 mai 2012 - 08:58 .

[Costin_Razvan]

The peasants aren't the ones with armies at their backs, nor do they control the economy of the realm. Also based on what are you claiming Stennis will be manipulated by the nobles.

As for Radovid and Henselt, you know very well that in politics you can smile, hug someone warmly, treat them as a friend and then butcher their entire family.

[Weskerr]

I love this game. I don't understand how it hasn't received a 10/10 after the release of the Enhanced Edition. That is all.

[Weskerr]

Oh and I wanted to add that I think it's such a shame that Foltest was killed off. He is such a likable, well made character in all respects.

[Seboist]

Foltest was a great man. I made sure Letho,Sile and the Dragon paid the price for what they did.

Now if only my Geralt can get his hands on Iorveth in TW3...

Modifié par Seboist, 21 mai 2012 - 10:19 .

[horacethegrey]

To those who defend the kings of the North. You guys do make good points. This is a feudal society and most people will look to a sovereign for leadership and guidance.

But it still doesn't change the fact that these most of these monarchs are a**holes and douches at best. Foltest was a horny louse who slept with his sister and was ready to tear his realm apart by warring with the mother of his bastard children. Henselt? He's a war mongering tyrant who thinks himself invincible. Prince Penis on the other hand was a scheming little toad who was too full of himself to practice diplomacy. Radovid is probably the least of them, but even he doesn't bat an eye when the Knight of the Flaming Rose butcher all the mages at Loc Muinne (if you don't rescue Triss). And all of these guys were not very kind to the nonhuman races.

The North is not a nice place, mainly cause the rulers are not nice people. So what's wrong with having a woman who's secretly a dragon become a symbol of hope for the common folk and the nonhumans? 

Modifié par horacethegrey, 21 mai 2012 - 10:26 .

[Costin_Razvan]

horacethegrey: You misunderstand me. Saskia's ideals themselves are worth pursuing however my problem with Saskia is that she is not a capable politician, and because of that she won't succeed. That is my problem with her, not that she is liar, a would be murderer and a hypocrite but rather that she is not capable to lead a nation.

My problem with Saskia fangirls and fanboys is that they do not recognize her faults and consider a great ruler.

As for the rest of the kings. The one thing I value in a ruler above everything else, even combined, is what that person has done to strengthen their nation. I don't care what kind of people Henselt, Radovid and Foltest are since they all have strengthened their respective kingdoms and because of that I respect them.

As for liking them. I like Radovid for his cunning and intelligence, Henselt for actually caring for his men ( how many generals can claim they risked their own lives in a battle by fighting alongside their men and even saving their soldiers in the thick of it? How many generals claim to remember the names of their men? ) and for improving the lives of thousands of his people. Foltest for being a charming leader.

Stennis. Well I don't know what kind of leader Stennis will be frankly, but I think he does care for his people. Whether or not he will be a good ruler remains to be seen but even if he maintains the status quo that's still better then that Saskia will do.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mai 2012 - 10:54 .

[horacethegrey]

I'm not a diehard Saskia fanboy, and I don't think she's without fault either. She is using a lie to create a reputation for herself. But she's a much better alternative than the other kings of the North. And yes, I do think her lack of politcal experience and ruthlessness could be a detriment in the long run. But she and her followers deserve better than to be a puppet for the Lodge of Sorcerecess.

And I do agree that the main value of a king is his ability to rule. But the flipside of that is they enjoy a lofty position of power which affords them the ability to get away with anything. Geralt says in one of his animated monologues that the greatest crime in the North is regicide, and the kings take advantage of this any chance they can get. None moreso than Henselt, who butchers the Blue Stripes and rapes Ves (I do agree he had cause, what with Roche scheming behind his back). So imagine his surprise when Roche guts him like a pig. Maybe not the smartest move for Geralt and Roche to be sure, but it proved even a king must answer for his crimes. 

And Prince Penis, care about his people? The only thing he cares about is that people bow before him because of his royal lineage. He doesn't give a s**t about the peasants as Geralt points out, since he never bohers in proclaiming his innocence of poisoning Saskia. He has the extreme delusion that one of royal blood cannot be judged by the common folk.

[Costin_Razvan]

She is not a better alternative if she won't keep her kingdom together. In the end the collapse, and it will happen, will cause a lot of suffering.

Assuming the kingdom is even created.

Truth be told killing Henselt like that won't teach anyone anything. If he was killed publicly on the other after a trial now that would be different.

As for Stennis. The peasants don't care for properly judging him. They've already condemned him for being a noble. if there's a reason to stop the lynching is that if you ignore the rule of law you will have a kingdom in chaos.

[horacethegrey]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Truth be told killing Henselt like that won't teach anyone anything. If he was killed publicly on the other after a trial now that would be different.

As for Stennis. The peasants don't care for properly judging him. They've already condemned him for being a noble. if there's a reason to stop the lynching is that if you ignore the rule of law you will have a kingdom in chaos.

And what court will condemn Henselt  for killing a Temerian special forces group and raping one of it's commanders? None. Henselt thinks he'll get away with it just like anything, and pays for that hubris with his life. The only time Henselt gets properly humbled for all the see is when Saskia defeats his army on Iorveth's path.

Prince Penis on the other hand deserved the lynching he got. If he was the leader he claimed to be he would have managed to talk the peasants into accepting his leadership, rather than lording it over them as he always does. 

[Costin_Razvan]

What happened to the Blue Stripes besides Ves was lawful, you can't dispute that. I would have done the same in his place, though I would have just killed Ves instead of what he did.

And you are not advocating justice, you are advocating revenge. Roche does not kill Henselt, he murders him. The difference between the two is important, and to be quite frank about it: You have to be an ignorant ****** to think killing Henselt is a good thing. it's not. Not for the North and not for Roche.

I personally don't care to murder someone just for the sake of revenge.

As for Stennis. Since when exactly do people deserve a lynching for being ****s? Besides the point really. You are giving in to the peasant desires for chaos and anarchy. It sets a very dangerous precedent to butcher someone without a fair trial, just because the mob demands it. The mob doesn't care whether Stennis is guilty or not, the mob just wants the blood of someone who was born a noble. The mob wants to throw the ****ing dwarves out of their own city.

As Geralt himself puts it: "That was not the justice Saskia fought for." and "What if people realize that might makes right."

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mai 2012 - 12:56 .

[TobiTobsen]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

horacethegrey: You misunderstand me. Saskia's ideals themselves are worth pursuing however my problem with Saskia is that she is not a capable politician, and because of that she won't succeed. That is my problem with her, not that she is liar, a would be murderer and a hypocrite but rather that she is not capable to lead a nation.

My problem with Saskia fangirls and fanboys is that they do not recognize her faults and consider a great ruler.

Saskia is clearly laking in the scheming and politics department, no doubt about that. That's one of the reasons why I always save Triss and stop the mages from being butchered, instead of lifting her curse asap.
That can be done later and with a mage advisor, who is no self-absorbed lodge member and compensates Saskias political shortcomings the state could actually succed.

If it succedes it's really something worth fighting for. A small light of hope in the dung heap that are the Northern Kingdoms.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 21 mai 2012 - 12:55 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Well I guess you could argue Triss could become her advisor. Something to think about.

But I would disagree that the Lodge was run by self-absorbed mages. They did care about strenghtening the North and actually did support Saskia's ideals. I think Phillipa respected Saskia.

That's not to say the Lodge is without it's sins. What they did at the first battle of Vergen...well that's tough to forgive.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mai 2012 - 01:01 .

[TobiTobsen]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Well I guess you could argue Triss could become her advisor. Something to think about.

But I would disagree that the Lodge was run by self-absorbed mages. They did care about strenghtening the North and actually did support Saskia's ideals. I think Phillipa respected Saskia.

That's not to say the Lodge is without it's sins. What they did at the first battle of Vergen...well that's tough to forgive.

I think my picture of them is tainted by the fact that they tried to screw me over everytime I met one of them

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 21 mai 2012 - 01:06 .

[horacethegrey]

Revenge or justice? What does it matter? Henselt got what he deserved. And no amount  posturing from him being the big kahuna in the North wasn't going to save him from Roche's wrath. 

And yes, I do realize that killing Henselt is abig nono for many involved. But playing the game from Geralt's POV, what does he care about the political situation of the North or that it will weaken with Henselt's death? He's a witcher. All he cares about is doing his duty, which is killing monsters, and supporting and protecting the people he cares for. In this case, Roche.

And back to Prince Penis, like I said, if he had any ounce of brainpower he would have managed to talk the mob down from wanting his head. Hell, if he had any sense at all he wouldn't have poisoned Saskia in the first place. Why poison the leader of a town where his position is not strong? He only has a handful of knights and nobles at his side, while Saskia has Vergen's dwarves, the Aedirn peasant militia, Iorveth's Scoiatel, and a witcher he insulted rather than court. And what's wrong with a little chaos and anarchy? When the common people have had their fill of an abusive order and rebel, how is that a bad thing?

I do agree though that the peasant mob in Vergen are a bunch of idiots. They're just as bad as those idiots in Flotsam.

[Costin_Razvan]

There is no evidence to prove he did poison Saskia. Here's what we know as facts.

1) Stennis was arguing with Olcan.
2) Olcan poisoned Saskia.
3) Olcan tried convincing Stennis to agree to poisoning Saskia.
4) The peasant carrying the wine stated that he heard two people talking in Stennis's room, he only recognized Olcan however saying that: "Just clear the kitchens.". 

As for Henselt and supporting the people he cares for. I convinced Roche to spare Henselt for that exact reason. I didn't want him or Geralt to become kingslayers, nor did I want Roche to take a course of action that he would later regret, and he does regret it. Nor did I want Roche to become like the people he was hunting.

As Geralt states "Do you want to be like those murders you chase because of this son of a ****? Kill Henselt and you'll aid the kingslayer's agenda. Let's go." 

You are neither protecting or supporting Roche by allowing him to murder Henselt. Letting him do it is simply giving in to the desire of vengeance.

As for your other argument that Geralt doesn't care about certain things. I'll put this as bluntly as I can: STFU. Geralt cares about what you as the player care about. If you want to save Triss because you care about her you can do that, if you want to save her because you want to get the information she then that's up to you. If you want to help Roche because you care about Temeria, or him, or want to get vengenace on Dethmold, or cared about Foltest and want to save his bastard daughter then it's up to you. If you want to kill Letho because of the things he did, or because you deem him too dangerous to let live, or because you want vengeance.

If you want to spare him you can do so because he was your friend and protected Yennfer, because killing him is pointless, because Witcher's killing fellow witchers is foolish. Etc. I can go on.

The bloody point is that Geralt, despite the fact he is a set character, has complex motivation that vary depending on each individual player. So don't ****ing reduce him to a simple character who only cares about a few things.

As Geralt stated to Kimbolt: "I decide what I care about." 

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mai 2012 - 01:46 .

[horacethegrey]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

There is no evidence to prove he did poison Saskia. Here's what we know as facts.

1) Stennis was arguing with Olcan.
2) Olcan poisoned Saskia.
3) Olcan tried convincing Stennis to agree to poisoning Saskia.
4) The peasant carrying the wine stated that he heard two people talking in Stennis's room, he only recognized Olcan however saying that: "Just clear the kitchens.". 

1) It's pretty obvious that Penis and Olcan arguing was just a ruse. That or maybe Olcan was getting a little overzealous and Penis had to tell him to shut the f**k up.
2) There's no disputing that. But...
3) Penis still knew of the plan. He could have prevented it from happening mind you. Not out of any concern for Saskia, but concern for his own well being. It's pretty obvious that Penis cares nothing for Saskia, and he had all to gain with her death.

[Costin_Razvan]

He likely knew of Olcan's desire to poison Saskia but you have NO evidence to prove he took part it, nor is there proof to show that Olcan even gave Stennis his plan on how he was going to posion Saskia. Also there is mention of another argument on the subject, not just when they went to meet Henselt.

Caring or not for Saskia is bloody irrelevant to his guilt. 

As for gaining something from it, what exactly? The army won't follow him and he needs a victory to take the throne, he states as much. If Saskia dies the army desintegrates and Vergen falls to Kaedwen. He doesn't give a damn to give his royal blood to help Saskia, but that is not proof of him poisoning her.

Who was the one to actually gain something? Phillipa.

You dislike him, fine, but give an objective argument.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 mai 2012 - 01:56 .