[Griffin Witcher]

I beat TW2, and it is the best RPG ever. I could not possibly tell you how awesome it was. The things I didn't like however were some puzzles like the one when you're trying to figure out if a letter form Baron Kimbolt was real or not. Finding the solution for the blue ink was ridiculously confusing. I also hated the fact some things that were very minor were taken away from the Xbox 360 port from the PC, like the meditating animation. Overall the game is fantastic and I do not hate it. I played the game on easy to focus on story more than gameplay.I chose Roche's path and enjoyed it but I heard that Ioverth's path is better. I chose Anais instead of Triss (I thought she died)only because shes just a little girl and the future leader of Temeria, I mean how could I not save her? I also did it to kill Dethmold (I didn't know he was homosexual). Question: Was it a bad thing to let Roche kill King Henslet?

[vivaxardas]

Not for me, but I am pro-Nilfgaardian. If you kill Henselt, you essentially complete Letho's mission, only with much better timing - Henselt crashed a rebellion, prevented a new state with Saskia as a queen to be created, thus he completely outlived his usefulness, and then died. If he lives, he unites Kaedwen and Aedirn (because prince Stennis is dead), and becomes the most powerful king of the North. If he dies - both Kaedwen and Aedirn descend into chaos.

[Guy N'wah]

Griffin Witcher said:

I beat TW2, and it is the best RPG ever. I could not possibly tell you how awesome it was. The things I didn't like however were some puzzles like the one when you're trying to figure out if a letter form Baron Kimbolt was real or not. Finding the solution for the blue ink was ridiculously confusing. I also hated the fact some things that were very minor were taken away from the Xbox 360 port from the PC, like the meditating animation. Overall the game is fantastic and I do not hate it. I played the game on easy to focus on story more than gameplay.I chose Roche's path and enjoyed it but I heard that Ioverth's path is better. I chose Anais instead of Triss (I thought she died)only because shes just a little girl and the future leader of Temeria, I mean how could I not save her? I also did it to kill Dethmold (I didn't know he was homosexual). Question: Was it a bad thing to let Roche kill King Henslet? ›››

Moved to Plot and Quest Discussion, so topics you raised can be discussed without introducing spoilers in a forum where readers don't expect to encounter them.

The "blue ink" thing is a darn close approximation of some real world invisible inks. I found it just obscure enough to be a worthwhile challenge, but it revealed itself to be thoughtfully done when completed.

Nobody can give you an answer as to whether it was wrong to kill Henselt, because there is no clear right or wrong in this and many other situations in the game. I'd say it was justifiable but not wise, especially when you see that Roche does not feel avenged by it.

[Bloth]

Congrats, as for the better path and wise actions it's all up to you, that's the strength of the Witcher games, they don't preach on foist their agenda on you, they simply pose the most devilish of questions and let yuou decide which is right. They respect us as reasoning adults, and that's why they'll continue to get my pittance.

[vivaxardas]

Guy N said:

I'd say it was justifiable but not wise, especially when you see that Roche does not feel avenged by it. ›››

Was it justifiable? If we are talking about rape, then it is not punishable by death penalty. If about execution of blue stripes - Henselt was perfectly within his rights to do so, exactly as he said to Geralt and Roche. By killing him we quite predictably destroy law and order of two kingdoms (none of them have heirs to the thrones), where chaos and lawlessness will result in multiple deaths. I doubt it is justifiable to bring that much pain and suffering as a retribution for Ves'. From geopolitical perspective, Roche is a criminal who should be quartered for weakening the North.

[Guy N'wah]

By the rule of an eye for an eye, it is justified. Henselt is a rapist, and he condoned a lynching. Roche had just as much right to ventilate his guts as Henselt did to hang Roche's men; if you justify one, you must accept the other.

As to whether the death penalty is appropriate for rape, yes, in those days, it certainly was. Impalement was a common penalty for this crime. Henselt was not thus shamed. You could say he got off easy.

Because it will cast Kaedwen into anarchy, it was not wise. As to whether this weakens the North, this is outside Geralt's interest, and because of this, the geopolitical perspective is of about that much passing interest to me.

As to whether Roche can be called to account for it, some will try and will probably fail.

[FoggyFishburne]

Blothulfur said:

Congrats, as for the better path and wise actions it's all up to you, that's the strength of the Witcher games, they don't preach on foist their agenda on you, they simply pose the most devilish of questions and let yuou decide which is right. They respect us as reasoning adults, and that's why they'll continue to get my pittance. ›››

*Sniff* That was beautiful Bloth. Well said bro. And I agree.

[vivaxardas]

Guy N said:

By the rule of an eye for an eye, it is justified. Henselt is a rapist, and he condoned a lynching. Roche had just as much right to ventilate his guts as Henselt did to hang Roche's men; if you justify one, you must accept the other.

As to whether the death penalty is appropriate for rape, yes, in those days, it certainly was. Impalement was a common penalty for this crime. Henselt was not thus shamed. You could say he got off easy.

Because it will cast Kaedwen into anarchy, it was not wise. As to whether this weakens the North, this is outside Geralt's interest, and because of this, the geopolitical perspective is of about that much passing interest to me.

As to whether Roche can be called to account for it, some will try and will probably fail. ›››

Well, you are right. In that northern mess, when even Radovid is quite happy when Geralt tells him it was he who killed Henselt (I never pointed finger at Roche, so I do not know Radovid's reaction to this), revenge is a perfectly acceptable justification.

As about Geralt's interests - well, witchers openly acknowledge that they benefit from chaos that breeds monsters, and that they loose income in times of peace and prosperity. If to play Geralt not as a kind of a hero of common people, but just a monster exterminator for hire, anarchy in the North would be quite to Geralt's interests, and so he should promote it purely out of self-interest.

[Black Leopard]

Griffin Witcher said:

I didn't know he was homosexual ›››

Homosexuality was very common among sorcerers & sorceresses in olden days (more than 70%).

[Guy N'wah]

vivaxardas said:

Well, you are right. In that northern mess, when even Radovid is quite happy when Geralt tells him it was he who killed Henselt (I never pointed finger at Roche, so I do not know Radovid's reaction to this), revenge is a perfectly acceptable justification.

As about Geralt's interests - well, witchers openly acknowledge that they benefit from chaos that breeds monsters, and that they loose income in times of peace and prosperity. If to play Geralt not as a kind of a hero of common people, but just a monster exterminator for hire, anarchy in the North would be quite to Geralt's interests, and so he should promote it purely out of self-interest. ›››

I don't think Geralt would be acting out of self-interest, any more than a dentist would encourage bad oral hygiene to make more work pulling teeth. But there are things such as the fate of kings and kingdoms that he takes little interest in and (usually without success) takes care to stay away from.

[Red0oG]

vivaxardas said:

Not for me, but I am pro-Nilfgaardian. ›››

lol,why?

[vivaxardas]

redog44 said:

lol,why? ›››

So may reasons. In other threads I posted a lot about it, when we discussed a plot, I don't want to repeat it all and sound like a broken record. Long live the Emperor!

[Griffin Witcher]

vivaxardas said:

So may reasons. In other threads I posted a lot about it, when we discussed a plot, I don't want to repeat it all and sound like a broken record. Long live the Emperor! /> ›››

Is it me or is anyone reminded about the Empire from the Elder Scrolls when Nilfgaard is mentioned? I mean Nilfgaard is pretty badass, did you see that invasion at the end, I mean c'mon!

[vivaxardas]

Nilfgaard reminds me of the great empires in our history - Roman, Byzantium (Second Rome), Russian (Third Rome as it was called). When I watch TW2 outro invasion, it is like Roman legions crossing into Gaul or something. Not a pretty sight, blood will flow like water, but I believe that when dust eventually settles, and the North will be divided into Nilfgaardian provinces, life will be better then under Northern kings.

[Guy N'wah]

Black Leopard said:

Homosexuality was very common among sorcerers & sorceresses in olden days (more than 70%). ›››

I'd like to know more about that claim before accepting it; first, because "sorcerers" and "sorceresses" never actually existed, though some people believed that they did; second, because I don't know of any documented circle of homosexuals that encompassed supposed sorcerers or sorceresses. See for example Halsall and works cited therein, especially Boswell.

vivaxardas said:

Nilfgaard reminds me of the great empires in our history - Roman, Byzantium (Second Rome), Russian (Third Rome as it was called). When I watch TW2 outro invasion, it is like Roman legions crossing into Gaul or something. Not a pretty sight, blood will flow like water, but I believe that when dust eventually settles, and the North will be divided into Nilfgaardian provinces, life will be better then under Northern kings. ›››

Nilfgaard has always suggested Byzantium to me, particularly because of the device of the sun; compare the arms of Isaac Komnenos of Cyprus,

or the Vergina Sun closely associated with Macedonia,

[vivaxardas]

In using diplomacy as a weapon of war Nilfgaard is much closer to Bizantine Empire, then to Rome. All Roman diplomacy consisted in offering a choice - join or else. But Bizantium could never afford such behavior, because they had strong and multiple enemies on two fronts - persians, arabs and turks on the east, and slavs and nomads on the north. They knew the cost of an open conflict, and tried to avoid it as much as possible. Historically for the Byzantines there was no distinction between war and peace, and diplomacy was a form of war by other means. They created the first foreign intelligence agency, collecting info from every source they could find, they had a policy of covertly sponsored revolts and rebellions in foreign nations, if threatened by them. The emperor maintained a stable of pretenders to almost every foreign throne. These could be given funds and released to wreak havoc if their homeland threatened attack. They pretty much used to raise hell if necessary, exactly as Nilfgaard does in TW2. Probably Bizantium was the only empire that considered the open conflict a failure of sorts, kind of a nice approach to foreign policy.

[ZinuX]

Nilfgaard also has some distinctly Roman foreign policies like their pursuit of 'spreading civilisation and trade', which was the Romans main propaganda point in their expansionism. Voiced in TW2 by Shilard in the prologue and Cynthia in Act 3