2819 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

Of course he is a dick. He's a king in the medieval era, what did you expect?

[Damariel]

I don't know.... nobleness maybe?

Even Demawend was better.

Modifié par Damariel, 18 février 2013 - 11:49 .

[Dave of Canada]

Mr.House wrote...

Geralt says it best when he compares Henselt to Loredo, but killing a king is alot diffrent then killing a tradin post commander.  I really hope Henselt will be in TW3.

At the very least, I'd like to hear how Kaedwen is weathering the storm.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It still doens't make it a logical or practical decision and I'd never take it, but it's not necessarily emotionally-drive. At least not fully. It could be driven by principles and ideals (which I don't disagree with in essence). 

That's true, though I'd question whether or not killing a good monarch which improved the lives of his human subjects in the crisis which is afflicting the north and branding Roche a king-slayer would be for the best even if principles and ideals demanded blood.

Damariel wrote...

Cause it is impulsive and emotion-driven.... and I love to chose this option every single time. And I will be honest here, despite how awesome Henselt is... he's a d*ck.

He behaves as many would in his position, I'd say. Does this justify his actions? Not really but you can't fault him for behaving as expected for a man of his position in the era. The fact that his human subjects in Kaedwen live peacefully is something to be admired.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 18 février 2013 - 11:53 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Damariel wrote...

I don't know.... nobleness maybe?

Even Demawend was better.

It's all a lie.

[Nerevar-as]

Damariel wrote...

I don't know.... nobleness maybe?

Even Demawend was better.

The guy has a story of betraying the North to Nilfgaard, then Nilfgaard to the North, and doing his best to keep the half of Aedirn? Nilfgaard had granted him. Good ridance, there´s already enough to worry about without waiting for a backstab that way.

There are a couple of good kings in the series, but considering Foltest and Emhyr are the ones who were powerful, competent and had some sort of sense of honor says everything there´s to know.

[Damariel]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Damariel wrote...

I don't know.... nobleness maybe?

Even Demawend was better.

It's all a lie.

I don't talking here about how good ruler he was.  Cause Demawend was hopeless as a ruler.

[Costin_Razvan]

The guy has a story of betraying the North to Nilfgaard, then Nilfgaard to the North, and doing his best to keep the half of Aedirn? Nilfgaard had granted him. Good ridance, there´s already enough to worry about without waiting for a backstab that way.

If you call making a deal with Nilfgaard that halted the entire eastern army's advance while he fortified the Pontar and refused to allow them passage into the Temeria while he secretly sent the Dun Banner to Brenna then sure. Without Henselt's "betrayal" there would have been no northern victory.

So yes it's very short-sighted to kill Henselt. He's the only remaining monarch in the north with very good military experience in charge of one the large realms.

 I don't talking here about how good ruler he was.  Cause Demawend was hopeless as a ruler.

I am not talking about capbility but about nobility. Nobles were the biggest pricks during the medieval ages and the kings were the biggesst pricks among the nobility.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 19 février 2013 - 12:03 .

[Damariel]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Damariel wrote...

I don't know.... nobleness maybe?

Even Demawend was better.

The guy has a story of betraying the North to Nilfgaard, then Nilfgaard to the North, and doing his best to keep the half of Aedirn? Nilfgaard had granted him. Good ridance, there´s already enough to worry about without waiting for a backstab that way.

There are a couple of good kings in the series, but considering Foltest and Emhyr are the ones who were powerful, competent and had some sort of sense of honor says everything there´s to know.

Foltest, Emhyr and Vizimir were powerful... but Vizimir is dead (Foltest too now), and his son... well everyone know what I mean. 

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I am not talking about capbility but about nobility. Nobles were the biggest pricks during the medieval ages and the kings were the biggesst pricks among the nobility.

I see your point, but I still believe in my own judgment in Henselt case

Modifié par Damariel, 19 février 2013 - 12:06 .

[Damariel]

Double post. <_<

Modifié par Damariel, 19 février 2013 - 12:06 .

[Costin_Razvan]

I see your point, but I still believe in my own judgment in Henselt case

You are aware of course that this will cause the deaths of thousands of Kaedweni's and might just very well make the north lose the war right?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dave of Canada wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It still doens't make it a logical or practical decision and I'd never take it, but it's not necessarily emotionally-drive. At least not fully. It could be driven by principles and ideals (which I don't disagree with in essence). 

That's true, though I'd question whether or not killing a good monarch which improved the lives of his human subjects in the crisis which is afflicting the north and branding Roche a king-slayer would be for the best even if principles and ideals demanded blood.

Eh you know me, I wouldn't think it's best. But a number might. 

Personally, although I'd never kill Henselt, I'm glad Geralt knocked the **** out of him, because he deserves it. 

[Costin_Razvan]

Personally, although I'd never kill Henselt, I'm glad Geralt knocked the **** out of him, because he deserves it.

Meh, it just seems so petty to me, yet I do enjoy it to a degree I won't deny that.

[Damariel]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I see your point, but I still believe in my own judgment in Henselt case

You are aware of course that this will cause the deaths of thousands of Kaedweni's and might just very well make the north lose the war right?

Yes, and I can't recall a moment when I was ready to die for the Northern Kingdoms. Still Kaedwen isn't a only remaining Northern kingdom beside Redania if I remember.

Modifié par Damariel, 19 février 2013 - 12:17 .

[Nerevar-as]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I see your point, but I still believe in my own judgment in Henselt case

You are aware of course that this will cause the deaths of thousands of Kaedweni's and might just very well make the north lose the war right?

Unlikely considering they are following book canon so far (such as the sorceresses progrom). You also say it as if it was a bad thing. This is the kind of world where it might not be.

No idea about the Kaedweni´s, depends on how the succession goes.

[Damariel]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I see your point, but I still believe in my own judgment in Henselt case

You are aware of course that this will cause the deaths of thousands of Kaedweni's and might just very well make the north lose the war right?

Unlikely considering they are following book canon so far (such as the sorceresses progrom). You also say it as if it was a bad thing. This is the kind of world where it might not be.

No idea about the Kaedweni´s, depends on how the succession goes.

Well, Line of Unicorns ends on Henselt... And I don't think that one of his bastards will take the crown.

Modifié par Damariel, 19 février 2013 - 12:24 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I see your point, but I still believe in my own judgment in Henselt case

You are aware of course that this will cause the deaths of thousands of Kaedweni's and might just very well make the north lose the war right?

Unlikely considering they are following book canon so far (such as the sorceresses progrom). You also say it as if it was a bad thing. This is the kind of world where it might not be.

No idea about the Kaedweni´s, depends on how the succession goes.

The games deviate from book cannon. There was no third Nilfgaardian war in the book cannon.

I don't believe that Emhyr winning the war would be a bad thing, but I am not playing me in the game I'm playing Geralt and I can't see how Geralt would want the north to lose the war in TW2. In TW3 especially after the conversation with Letho at the end of TW2 his perspective might change or might not.

 Yes, and I can't recall a moment when I was ready to die for the Northern Kingdoms. Still Kaedwen isn't a only remaining Northern kingdom beside Redania if I remember.

Redania on it's own can't stand against Nilfgaard. Radovid is a great politician but he has no military experience. Furthermore Henselt has a strong army and is a competent general. To kill him would mean to deprive the eastern front of one it's last great commanders leaving everything in the hands of Meeve and with all due respect to her I very much doubt she can handle it on her own.

With regards to Geralt dying for the north, how is that relevant to what I said? I very much doubt Geralt is willing to accept Nilfgaard winning the war.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 19 février 2013 - 12:38 .

[Damariel]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I see your point, but I still believe in my own judgment in Henselt case

You are aware of course that this will cause the deaths of thousands of Kaedweni's and might just very well make the north lose the war right?

Unlikely considering they are following book canon so far (such as the sorceresses progrom). You also say it as if it was a bad thing. This is the kind of world where it might not be.

No idea about the Kaedweni´s, depends on how the succession goes.

The games deviate from book cannon. There was no third Nilfgaardian war in the book cannon.

I don't believe that Emhyr winning the war would be a bad thing, but I am not playing me in the game I'm playing Geralt and I can't see how Geralt would want the north to lose the war in TW2. In TW3 especially after the conversation with Letho at the end of TW2 his perspective might change or might not.

 Yes, and I can't recall a moment when I was ready to die for the Northern Kingdoms. Still Kaedwen isn't a only remaining Northern kingdom beside Redania if I remember.

Redania on it's own can't stand against Nilfgaard. Radovid is a great politician but he has no military experience. Furthermore Henselt has a strong army and is a competent general. To kill him would mean to deprive the eastern front of one it's last great commanders leaving everything in the hands of Meeve.

With regards to Geralt dying for the north, how is that relevant to what I said? I very much doubt Geralt is willing to accept Nilfgaard winning the war.

In Kovir we have faith then. Or should I say... in Kingdom of Switzerland.

Modifié par Damariel, 19 février 2013 - 12:39 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Don't get me wrong btw. I want the ability to side with Emhyr in TW3 but I also want it to make sense from Geralt's perspective.

[Damariel]

And I've not said that I will side with Emhyr

[Mr.House]

I personally like that all the kings had massive faults that made them feel like real kings. My fav king though was Foltest, despite his little stint with his sister >.<

Modifié par Mr.House, 19 février 2013 - 12:54 .

[Nerevar-as]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I see your point, but I still believe in my own judgment in Henselt case

You are aware of course that this will cause the deaths of thousands of Kaedweni's and might just very well make the north lose the war right?

Unlikely considering they are following book canon so far (such as the sorceresses progrom). You also say it as if it was a bad thing. This is the kind of world where it might not be.

No idea about the Kaedweni´s, depends on how the succession goes.

The games deviate from book cannon. There was no third Nilfgaardian war in the book cannon.

I don't believe that Emhyr winning the war would be a bad thing, but I am not playing me in the game I'm playing Geralt and I can't see how Geralt would want the north to lose the war in TW2. In TW3 especially after the conversation with Letho at the end of TW2 his perspective might change or might not.

 Yes, and I can't recall a moment when I was ready to die for the Northern Kingdoms. Still Kaedwen isn't a only remaining Northern kingdom beside Redania if I remember.

Redania on it's own can't stand against Nilfgaard. Radovid is a great politician but he has no military experience. Furthermore Henselt has a strong army and is a competent general. To kill him would mean to deprive the eastern front of one it's last great commanders leaving everything in the hands of Meeve and with all due respect to her I very much doubt she can handle it on her own.

With regards to Geralt dying for the north, how is that relevant to what I said? I very much doubt Geralt is willing to accept Nilfgaard winning the war.

Nor was anything said about not being one. However we´ve got the catriona, the sorceress hunt, and Radovid the Cruel. I also don´t really expect the Ice Age being prevented.

Geralt doesn´t give a damn about the war, unless/until he gets caught in the middle. All he cared about the first warwas whether Yenn and Ciri had died on it, and in the second he just wanted to find Ciri and Yenn. And now again. Let´s hope third time is the charm.

[Costin_Razvan]

Radovid is Stern, ruthless, pragmatic but not cruel.

With regards to Geralt giving a damn about the war or not. Game Geralt is not book Geralt. I mean yes you can play book Geralt who would save Triss because he cares for her but you can also play game Geralt who saves Triss for the information she has and then tells her he thinks her a liar and that he no longer trusts her.

I think the most epic line there is after Triss says: I never lied to you.

Geralt: "You have no idea how much I want to believe that."

Obviously the white frost is coming, but the high politics will still be there, you can get involved or not and this decision wll have consequenes.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 19 février 2013 - 01:13 .

[VoiceOfPudding]

His belt annoyed me so he had to die. Northern Kingdoms be damned there's more pressing issues!