2819 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

Sebastian Stephien wrote Letho, he was also the lead writer.

Knight: Where did Jan tell you that? In this thread or?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 février 2013 - 07:07 .

[Mr.House]

Thank you Costin, no wonder Letho was extremely well written. Hoping we bump into him in TW3 if he is alive. Maybe even join forces for a monster mission.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Knight: Where did Jan tell you that? In this thread or?

TW2 thread. It was a general comment, not specifically related to Radovid, but to politics in general and Radovid was one of the things we had discussed.  

[Costin_Razvan]

Mr.House wrote...

Thank you Costin, no wonder Letho was extremely well written. Hoping we bump into him in TW3 if he is alive. Maybe even join forces for a monster mission.

I'm hoping he will help us in the main story if we decide to aid Nilfgaard in TW3.

And yes I want the option to be able to help Nilfgaard.

[Mr.House]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Thank you Costin, no wonder Letho was extremely well written. Hoping we bump into him in TW3 if he is alive. Maybe even join forces for a monster mission.

I'm hoping he will help us in the main story if we decide to aid Nilfgaard in TW3.

And yes I want the option to be able to help Nilfgaard.

It should be in the game, to not have the option would be very lame imo and kinda feel like CDP just wants to make Nilgaard the "big bad" which would be <_<

[Costin_Razvan]

I get the feeling they might not include it considering how much Zoltan, Dandelion and apparently book Geralt hate Nilfgaard.

But yes it would just be a kick in the balls.

[Yrkoon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Because There was nothing even remotely political behind his words and actions in that scene. For god sakes, Radovid went on a rant about how he had to answer to her when he was a little kid, and how insignificant she made him *feel* when he was growing up (!).

Did you miss this guy standing right next to Radovid?



There's a reason behind that, a clear message sent to Nilfgaard and everyone else: Don't **** with me.

You mean the message is:  "don't **** with me,  Or I'll....  I'll  let you live and just inflict some   inconsequential temporary pain on you"

The whole  "I'm trying to send a message to Nilfgaard" argument  doesn't really resonate here, since a  true display of Political bad-assery would have seen Radovid *KILL* Phillipa the second she refused to submit.   Instant Death is precisely what this very  Nilfgaardian diplomat tries to inflict on Geralt in that very same prison, after all..

Modifié par Yrkoon, 20 février 2013 - 07:23 .

[Mr.House]

Zoltan also hated me at the end of TW because I was helping the order yet in TW2 he does not even remember that, lol.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yrkoon wrote...
The whole  "I'm trying to send a message to Nilfgaard" argument  doesn't really resonate here, since a  true display of Political bad-assery would have seen Radovid *KILL* Phillipa the second she refused to submit.    After all,  Instant Death is precisely what this very  Nilfgaardian diplomat tries to inflict on Geralt in that very same prison.

There's nothing "badass" about taking a life, it's easy.
Destroying someone's reputation utterly, and killing her following due process, making sure both law and morals are on your side, is what constitutes "political badassery", because politics happens to be a little more sophisticated than "hurr durr me kill rival."
The torture is there to cement his moniker, show Shilard he's not to be messed with, and to vent his anger. 

Shilard wants to kill Geralt for entirely different reasons. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 février 2013 - 07:25 .

[slimgrin]

I think Radovid was making a show of it. And yes it was cruel as hell, no one is denying that. But frequently in medieval times, emissaries weren't necessarily killed, they were sent back to their kings after their servants were gutted before their eyes, or they had their hats nailed to their heads. But they were sent back alive to send a message.

Modifié par slimgrin, 20 février 2013 - 07:26 .

[Corto81]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

And yes I want the option to be able to help Nilfgaard.

I can't think of any scenario why Geralt would want to help Nilfgaard.

In the books and TW2 Nilfgaard was the enemy and Geralt suffered - in this way or that - because of their actions.
(they weren't really present in TW1)

But yeah... I read the books a while ago now, and no, I can't think of any scenarion why Geralt would help them.
Especially after they did or tried to do to his close friends.

...

I'm sure there'll be mulitple choices to do stuff in TW3, but siding with Nilfgaard? I hope that's not one of them, it makes absolutely zero sense.

[Mr.House]

Very easy, they want to stop the wild hunt. There we go, I just found one big reason Geralt should consider the option.

[Costin_Razvan]

I can't think of any scenario why Geralt would want to help Nilfgaard.

Emhyr has Yennefer, he might be willing to allow Geralt to take her with him in exchange for his aid.

Want any bigger reason then the love of his love?

I personally don't much give a damn what happened in the books to be honest if that's going to be the excuse.

And as House noted Emhyr might very well want to stop the Wild Hunt.

 show Shilard he's not to be messed with,

Especially when he's about to help him destroy the Conclave.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 20 février 2013 - 07:37 .

[Yrkoon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
The whole  "I'm trying to send a message to Nilfgaard" argument  doesn't really resonate here, since a  true display of Political bad-assery would have seen Radovid *KILL* Phillipa the second she refused to submit.    After all,  Instant Death is precisely what this very  Nilfgaardian diplomat tries to inflict on Geralt in that very same prison.

There's nothing "badass" about taking a life, it's easy.

It's not just "A* life, it's a powerful sorceress's life.    Second, we're talking messeges sent, here.  What can be a more solid message then  "If you cross me,  and I'll end your existance?"

Destroying someone's reputation utterly, and killing her while having the law on your side is what constitutes "political badassery", ."

No, that's called Chess.  And political chess is for people who are trying to win while adhering to the system...because they're too afraid to take a  tougher stance.  Is that the message to send to Nilfgaard?

The torture is there to cement his moniker, show Shilard he's not to be messed with, and to vent his anger. 

Well, alright, but I'm not quite sure  that the Nilfgaardian emporer or his diplomat  would ever be that impressed with a redanian leader who had the "courage" to enter  a sorceress'  jail cell....  to gouge her eyes out.  lol

Modifié par Yrkoon, 20 février 2013 - 07:44 .

[Mr.House]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I can't think of any scenario why Geralt would want to help Nilfgaard.

Emhyr has Yennefer, he might be willing to allow Geralt to take her with him in exchange for his aid.

Want any bigger reason then the love of his love?

I personally don't much give a damn what happened in the books to be honest if that's going to be the excuse.

And as House noted Emhyr might very well want to stop the Wild Hunt.

We know he and other high officals in the Empire are intrested in the Wild Hunt and morei ntrested in Geralt because of his past with the Hunt, as Cynthia proved in TW2. Him giving aid to Geralt is one hell of a reason for Geralt to reconsider stuff and really think. The North does not give a flying crap about the hunt, there are no signs of it. There are signs Nilfgaard does.

[slimgrin]

Corto81 wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

And yes I want the option to be able to help Nilfgaard.

I can't think of any scenario why Geralt would want to help Nilfgaard.

In the books and TW2 Nilfgaard was the enemy and Geralt suffered - in this way or that - because of their actions.
(they weren't really present in TW1)

But yeah... I read the books a while ago now, and no, I can't think of any scenarion why Geralt would help them.
Especially after they did or tried to do to his close friends.

...

I'm sure there'll be mulitple choices to do stuff in TW3, but siding with Nilfgaard? I hope that's not one of them, it makes absolutely zero sense.

It could make sense if Geralt sided with a rebel faction under the emporer, but one that still holds Nilfgardian values. I say this because Cynthia made an awful lot of sense to me when she descibed their point of view.

Modifié par slimgrin, 20 février 2013 - 07:43 .

[Mr.House]

slimgrin wrote...


It could make sense if Geralt sided with a rebel faction under the emporer, but one that still holds Nilfgardian values. I say this because Cynthia made an awful lot of sense to me when she descibed their point of view.

I like to think she opended Geralts eyes and showed that Nilfgaard is not really evil.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yrkoon wrote...
What can be a more solid message then  "If you cross me,  and I'll cend your existance?"

How about "I will torture you for defying me, then put you on trial, publicly humiliate you, destroy your image and legacy forever, and then kill you, all the while having morality and law by my side?" 

No, that's called Chess.  And political chess is for people who are trying to win while adhering to the system...because they're too afraid to take a  tougher stance.  Is that the message to send to Nilfgaard?

*facepalm*
Yea, because say Augustus ahdering to the system certainly makes him not tough.

Yes, let's all act outside the law, kill anyone who looks at us side ways out of anger. I am sure Emhyr will be very impressed. 

Well, alright, but I'm not quite sure  that the Nilfgaardian emporer or his diplomat  would ever be that impressed with a redanian leader who had the "courage" to enter into a defenseless  woman's jail cell....  to gouge her eyes out.  lol

Since Emhyr is the epitom of political chess (which you look down on as weakness) and will most certainly not have your level of understanding (or lack thereof), yea he'll be more impressed by that, than killing her in the manner you suggest and waste a great opportunity. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 20 février 2013 - 07:50 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

slimgrin wrote...
It could make sense if Geralt sided with a rebel faction under the emporer, but one that still holds Nilfgardian values. I say this because Cynthia made an awful lot of sense to me when she descibed their point of view.

They could also make a scenario where it would make sense to aid Emhyr, in exchange for something. I'm not interested in aiding rebels, I'm more interested in wokring with the White Flame. 

And now off to bed 

[Yrkoon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
What can be a more solid message then "If you cross me, and I'll cend your existance?"

How about "I will torture you for defying me, then put you on trial, publicly humiliate you, destroy your image and legacy forever, and then kill you, all the while having morality and law by my side?"

Boy you're making a lot of assumptions here. First off, how exactly does gouging someone's eyes out in prison lead to Humiliation, or image destruction? And if it doesn't, then what was the point? Again, was it to impress the witnesses? if so then why would you think it would do any such thing? Are you under the belief that a Nilfgaardian representitive is somehow unaware that such torture occurs daily in every kingdom, and that Radovid is  somehow special when he  displays his  personal emotion-filled torture skillz?

Yea, because say Augustus ahdering to the system certainly makes him not tough.

No, Tough is when you say: "****** on the laws. I'll change them if I need to" <----that's what Foltest says to Shilard. THAT is how a *real*, authentically tough, leader reacts to a situation that pits the law against his own royal will.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 20 février 2013 - 08:13 .

[Mr.House]

So I watched the outro again in TW2(because it's that awesome) and I love how when the guy see's the soldiers charging towards him on their horses, it looks like he is about to crap himself out of fear.

Ugh, TW3 feels so far away..

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yrkoon wrote...

First off, how exactly does gouging someone's eyes out in prison lead to Humiliation?

Well clearly you're not understanding anything. The humiliation will come at the trial. The gouging is, as I already said,to cement the moniker of the stern, a pillar to his regime, make a example and show Shilard his wrath witthout killing her as it would be stupid.

No, Tough is when you say "****** on the laws. I'll change them if I need to" <----that's what Foltest says to Shilard. THAT is how a *real*, authentically tough, leader reacts to a situation that pits the law against his own royal will.

Ha. No you're describing a child, which no wonder impresses you considering your understanding of politics is equivalent.

Me, I'd rather take someone who manipulates and bends the law and perception to his will.

And now I am off to bed, will return tomorrow.

[Yrkoon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

First off, how exactly does gouging someone's eyes out in prison lead to Humiliation?

Well clearly you're not understanding anything. The humiliation will come at the trial.

Wait...  how?

The gouging is, as I already said,to cement the moniker of the stern, a pillar to his regime, make a example and show Shilard his wrath witthout killing her as it would be stupid.

So.... inflicting  some pain, while having a whiny temper tantrum (in front of  important witnesses no less)  = Stern?

Hahaha.  Forget politics.    Lets learn English first.  Find yourself a dictionary.

No, Tough is when you say "****** on the laws. I'll change them if I need to" <----that's what Foltest says to Shilard. THAT is how a *real*, authentically tough, leader reacts to a situation that pits the law against his own royal will.

Ha. No you're describing a child

No, I'm describing someone who  knows his   power, and isn't afraid to use it to get what he wants.

Me, I'd rather take someone who manipulates and bends the law and perception to his will.

But Radovid is doing no such thing.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 20 février 2013 - 08:38 .

[Chewin]

renjility wrote...
I know that Roche was the leader of the conspiracy and that the nobles played an important part. That's not what I was talking about. I was referring to the many soldiers in Henselt's own camp with a square coin with a fish on it.

 

Except that were the same people that were in with Roche in the conspiracy, not nobles solely. 

Having at least a tiny sense of morality would help.

Virtue over vice, eh? Perhaps, but the strenght lies in his efficiency, which correlates with the well being of his kingdom and people.  

That he wastes resources on persecuting nonhumans makes him pretty bad in my book already

It's true that he squanders his realms strenght and funds on the persecution of nonhumans, but it isn't like he wages war with them. It's more of an obsessive witch hunt for him. And it's not like he throws away his "war funds".

Again, being a respected general is not the same as being a good/respected king. And there was also a considerable group of conspirators amoung the king's soldiers. Oy, the king remembers your name! Wonderful, but that same king won't give a damn if your skull gets split in half during the battle, as long as he wins.

True, and I do see Henselt more of a capable general than king. And about him not caring about the soldiers--whether that statement is true or not--in the end him talking with the soldiers, arranging battle grounds in the camp, etc all help boost the moral and blood lust for the soldiers in the upcoming battle. And when it comes to not caring for them getting their skull cracked open and what not; the way I see it a good military general has to be able to 'sacrifice' soldiers without hesitation. If you let your emotions get the best of you, you have no business to be leading an army and sending them into battle.

That is such a weak excuse. "Dethmold made me do it!" Henselt does whatever he likes. He is king, he makes the decisions. He tells Dethmold to shut up if he wants to. If he didn't want to execute the Blue Strips, he wouldn't have given the order to do so. Don't overestimate the influence Dethmold has.

And you are underestimating Dethmold's influence. IIRC, the journal states itself that Hesnelt is "heavily influenced" by Dethmold.