Does anyone else feel like there was a clear-cut right and wrong decision at the end of Ch. 2?

[arkblazer]

How the hell is killing a mass murdering, rapist tyrant the "wrong" choice.

the dude is basically a saddam hussein. no its not a binary choice of good and evil.


even if their is instability in kweeden with his death their is also the possibility that things would improve.

we have to remember that henselt was a monarch who ruled with terror and genocide.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

If we really want to mete out justice on all wrong-doers, the only right thing is to nuke all of them - Iorveth who murdered women and children picking berries, Roche who sadistically tortures every subject to death disregarding the main principle - torture is not a punishment, but an information-gathering technique, Radovid, who started a massacre in Loc Muinne, sorceresses who approved and helped out with extermination of two armies, and so forth. Picking and choosing whom to kill, and whom to befriend, by the principle whose tits, arses, faces, or jokes we like or don't, is not a good way to do it. This is simply not fair, and, thus, wrong.

 

[twistedbiscuit]

If we really want to mete out justice on all wrong-doers, the only right thing is to nuke all of them - Iorveth who murdered women and children picking berries, Roche who sadistically tortures every subject to death disregarding the main principle - torture is not a punishment, but an information-gathering technique, Radovid, who started a massacre in Loc Muinne, sorceresses who approved and helped out with extermination of two armies, and so forth. Picking and choosing whom to kill, and whom to befriend, by the principle whose tits, arses, faces, or jokes we like or don't, is not a good way to do it. This is simply not fair, and, thus, wrong.

Again, can you hold back on the spoilers from Chapter 3 please? I didn't know about the SPOILER -> Loc Muinne massacre. Now that I've read it, its whatever, but I'd hate for someone else to see it only expecting Chapter 1/2 spoilers here. />

 

[goopit]

If you think about it books Geralt would hate Siegfried of Denesle or at least dislike him.

 

[dragonbird]

the dude is basically a saddam hussein. no its not a binary choice of good and evil.

Please avoid real-world comparisons. While that particular one probably won't offend anyone, the next might.

 

[Aditya]

as already said, killing him is an emotional choice, sparing him is a logical one. Besides technically Geralt doesn't kill or spare him, he is just good enough to talk anyone that is in this case Roche out of not doing something.

 

[wichat]

Let's briefing:

There's a first question: why do you thing that The Witcher is a game labeled as Mature? By violence? nudities? filthy vocabulary? yes, that too. But the true maturity of these 2 games lies in the choice of mature decisions. A mature choice is not to choose the most moral and the most heroic, but choose one that does not betray the character's own personality according to his emotional state. Once you have made the choice to be fully consistent with its effects, both Geralt and the rest of his surroundings. This is maturity. The magic is in "not knowing" 'what will happen next, but knowing what you're doing right now. CDPR gives us the magic of surprise according to our choices. . Not a choice, but a concatenation of them. In real life you do not control the consequences of your actions (however much you want to convince you otherwise) but it does not mean you're not responsible for them.

All the political and History consequences pass to be irrelevant in that moment.: Henselt is not yet a king at your eyes but a son of bitch and Roches is not yet a Commander but a raged man athirst of revenge. Choice yourself.

Kill Henselt or let him live is a choice as difficult as unforeseen consequences. And CDPR gives you the opportunity to feel a mature doubt about whether you have acted correctly or not. Maturity is the word.


Edit: And if you really end doubting of your choice that means CDPR has done a good job />

 

[Kindo.824]

Perceiving the choice as clear-cut says a lot about the person making the choice. I reacted the same way as TwistedBiscuit, thinking it was (for me) an obvious choice, only I chose to let Roche execute the bastard. It's only in hindsight and after further playthroughs that I've started to stop and think things like: "What would be the best choice, with political stability in mind?" or "How can I better strengthen the north in preparation for the pending invasion?" As much as I experiment and theorize about these things, I tend to fall back to the most pivotal question, at the end of the day: "What would my Geralt do?"

I'm still undecided on which "canon" playthrough I'll import into TW3, but most likely it will be what I instinctively did that first time around. My Geralt tends to lose his objectiveness when friends of his have been hurt, easily falling into the seductive arms of Revenge.

 

[username_3581677]

On the contrary. Foltest find it irritating that he had to stomach the presence of the black ones. Even going so far as to ask Geralt's opinion of how Geralt thought that he (foltest) dealed with them in prologue. As in real life diplomats, once dispatched on mission, woe to those who shoot them on sight or do not suffer willingly their presence in their country... Npcs of games and people of real life know this all too well.

(-Example about diplamats' authority and significance- Once upon a time, before depression, quite a few years ago, our dear allies overlords dispatched a colored beach who marched in our country, mistaking it for her doghouse, barking orders, demanding things and acting as high and mighty as a chiouahoua on steroids. Forcing us to cancel economic deals and partnerships with other foreign countries, ahem, like that damn gas business. Of course much harm came out of it for the lots, and the few would have benefited way more without the diplamats' presence or unavoidable ordering and barking negotiations. Who could either lay a hand on them or refuse them lodge and audience? /> ) (Another example from Poland: Same nationality people visited Poland. Demanded the people arrested and the domain seized of DemonoiD. They were handed all that on a silver plate. Plus a collector's edition bonus gift of Witcher 2 to the person who leads them, and (self)delusionary leads all the countries in the world just like Emhyr. A damn waste, alright. Witcher 2 requires intelligence to play; that man is guaranteed to never touch the stuff...)

About your last sentence, i do not know, you faintly give off the impression that if you could, you would punish Henselt with only 3 years imprisonment and freedom on purchase with (slight) restrictive measures, incarcerated in the wing of the a+ category of prisoners too. (sarcasm of real life justice/law issues and system malfunction) Joke aside, king or no king, the stronger you are, if you abuse and/or force people using strength, that is the worst. Even death is kind and compassionate for people of this type...

Really? this BS again. Stop talking shit about my homeland. This place is for talking about the WItcher series, not for turning it into your personal "I hate the USA" and "colored" people crusade. I do not condone your words here just as I would not condone it from an American talking shit about your homeland or any other members home here. I get the Witcher series mirrors real life politics at times, but that still doesn't condone your words here today. I re-read your post several times before I jumped the gun with my response. The way it is written leaves little doubt. You sir are a racist and bigot.

 

[Thothistox]

Henselt is a bastard on a personal level, but he is also a competent ruler and everything he does as a king makes sense. Remember that it was Henselt who ordered the execution of Sabrina, who used the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction on the battlefield. In other words, Henselt perferred to lose a battle than disobey an international law. There is something deeply noble about that, even if he is ruthless and a rapist. Henselt's potential successor might be less of jerk, but would he also have his priorities straight? Would he be a good king? Killing Henselt is a choice between siding with Geralt's friends Roche, Ves and the Blue Stripes versus perventing Aedirn from getting too weak in face of the Nilfgaardian invasion (also the goal of the Kingslayer). It's a tough choice, and it's interesting that the OP thought it was so clear cut.

I like how this choice ties in to the general theme of TW2. Is the villain the individual? (Letho? Henselt? ...Geralt playing "soldier boy" for Foltest?) Or is it mediaeval society? So that the individual gets caught up in the hierarchies, nationalities and conflicts fought for non-individual reasons. This, I think, is the choice Geralt has to make at the end of the game.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Henselt is a bastard on a personal level, but he is also a competent ruler and everything he does as a king makes sense. Remember that it was Henselt who ordered the execution of Sabrina, who used the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction on the battlefield. In other words, Henselt perferred to lose a battle than disobey an international law. There is something deeply noble about that, even if he is ruthless and a rapist. Henselt's potential successor might be less of jerk, but would he also have his priorities straight? Would he be a good king? Killing Henselt is a choice between siding with Geralt's friends Roche, Ves and the Blue Stripes versus perventing Aedirn from getting too weak in face of the Nilfgaardian invasion (also the goal of the Kingslayer). It's a tough choice, and it's interesting that the OP thought it was so clear cut.

I like how this choice ties in to the general theme of TW2. Is the villain the individual? (Letho? Henselt? ...Geralt playing "soldier boy" for Foltest?) Or is it mediaeval society? So that the individual gets caught up in the hierarchies, nationalities and conflicts fought for non-individual reasons. This, I think, is the choice Geralt has to make at the end of the game.

+1 ! This is exactly what impressed me much more then him raping Ves. The way he reacted to Sabrina's little Hiroshima, that he did not want to get Lormark at all cost and to walk over piles of burned bodies to victory, as people of Vergen were afraid of, but respected the Aedurnian army fallen to sorcery, and withdrew back into Kaedwen. He preferred to loose a war, three years of his life and a lot of resources, which resulted in a plot against him, but he acted very honorably from a military standpoint. Henselt may be a pig on a personal level, concerning his women, but he is a great military leader, and a great king. As great as Foltest was, only a tiny bit wiser.

 

[Cs__sz__r]

There is no right or wrong in whatever you choose.

Sure you let Henselt die, justice has been had for the Blue Stripes and Vest, but at what cost? Roche lowering himself to the Kingslayer's level, letting Kaedwen fall into civil war because he has no heir and will undoubtedly result in many innocents death, and lastly it will soften up yet another nation for the invasion.

And what if he lives? You keep Roche from becoming a regicide, and the North will be a bit stronger during the invasion. But in doing that there will be no justice for his unit and Aedirn will most likely fall to Kaedwen.

So since there are right and wrong in each choice it pushes them into that famous moral grey area and makes neither right nor wrong.

 

[atc.710]

"By what right does the wolf judge the lion?"

 

[sfinx]

+1 ! This is exactly what impressed me much more then him raping Ves. The way he reacted to Sabrina's little Hiroshima, that he did not want to get Lormark at all cost and to walk over piles of burned bodies to victory, as people of Vergen were afraid of, but respected the Aedurnian army fallen to sorcery, and withdrew back into Kaedwen. He preferred to loose a war, three years of his life and a lot of resources, which resulted in a plot against him, but he acted very honorably from a military standpoint. Henselt may be a pig on a personal level, concerning his women, but he is a great military leader, and a great king. As great as Foltest was, only a tiny bit wiser.

I respect your oppinion, but I don't see that this way. That was his fault, not Sabrina's. I don't care about his manners - honorable fight and death? Seems to me like conversation if is better to be hanged or shooted. She end that battle - his battle. He brought thousands men of two nations to death - she just choose the way, how they die. Maybe that day was killed more men, than if she haven't interacted, but that is not important for me. She didn't start that madness, they are just feared, how she could ended so many lifes in few seconds and they see it like something worse than long wars with much higher number of causalites. Wasn't that honorable for him? He thought - to be chopped is much better than burned? He should ask Rusty, how nice is being wounded by "regullar" weapon.
That words about honor of enemy suprised me as well, but I don't care much about that. Remember his words during meeting with Saskia - how noble he was with his words and his actions. What respect he has for agreements,..? Just few words between all his actions didn't make him better for me.
For me is much worse that one who starts war, not that one which end it. Some honorable death,... ? How honorable was being hanged for Blue stripes and where was his respect?
What he did to Ves - that wasn't so important for me (don't take me wrong - it's enough to make eunuch from him, but in that world and all dangers).

In other words, Henselt perferred to lose a battle than disobey an international law. There is something deeply noble about that

With all respect to your opinions..

His response on Stenis' prupose (to give Saskia) was very strange.
- And a treaty? I pis onn it...
..something about his respect to international law.
Also ask Felart: I've broken no truces or treaties, yet! ... I need you no longer, Felart. (if he was traitor, he shouldn't negotiate with him, if he wasn't Henselt had no honor)

For me is quite interesting, how your choices differs developing of game. I can say - Henselt is not that necesarry. But even Philippa mentioned that his death may start civil war - only reason why I would consider to let him alive. As I said - he is not so necesarry - he couldn't even deal with band of rebels and he survived just by will of Saskia (or Philippa). If that was up to me - i would rather kill him - for Blue stripes, for Sabrina, for all wars, he started ... and for his way, how to choose leader of the country. He also promissed Stennis to crush him, he said - only way how to keep his crown was his retreat. This should be the same for him.
(and they don't even need dragon )

 

[vivaxardas2015]

How are Sabrina's actions Henselt's fault? Historically, Henselt was in the right. Aedirn took Lormark from Kaedwen, and Henselt simply wanted a piece of native Kaedweni land back. Does any conventional war gives a right to any idiot with a nuke to drop it and irradiate both sides? I am an American, but I do not think that we should start nuke any conflict we feel unjustified. If some murder takes place, it does not give you any right to drop in and murder everybody involved, both perpetrators and the victims.

I don't really get why anybody even conceive to justify Sabrina's actions. I can get what reasons people may have to justify Hiroshima (though I disagree), but what Sabrina did was similar to nuking both Hiroshima and New York. She was a state official, it was her duty to attend to well-being of Kaedweni nation, but she chose to mass-murder her own people, those she was supposed to protect from magical danger. I don't really get why anybody can feel in the right when they disregard the duties they have here and now, in favor of some abstract principle, or some idealistic, or utopic political system, and start perpetrating heinous crimes with ease.

Plus, for Sabrina it was even worse - it was about her spat with Wandergrift. Her position at the Kaedweni court was threatened, and by carpet-bombing she wanted to get rid of him. Wow, to kill two armies, several thousand men on both sides as collateral damage because she wanted to off just one guy? Henselt was absolutely right when he burned her. BTW, it was no more cruel then what she did to the soldiers. She burned them alive - Henselt burned her alive. Justice served.

It is very sad that when something does not go their way, some sorceresses go for a mass murder by fire. Sabrina massacring two armies, Philippa and Sile ready to burn alive the entire Loc Muinne, including all the sorcerers in there... Melisandres my arse... The Night is Dark and Full of Terrors Sorceresses. No wonder I exterminate them any chance I get.

 

[sfinx]

How are Sabrina's actions Henselt's fault?

Spoiler

As I said - Henselt started war, Sabrina just finished that. Henselt brought men on the battlefield. If there wasn't Henselt (or someone like him), there would be no victims.
I don't blame someone, who just finished the war, I blame persons, which started that war. If there wasn't Sabrina, who would pay for thousands of dead bodies? ... No one - because it's normal to lead many men to death, buth when sorceress defeat both sides, that is problem? When you are in that battle, you are soldier of gray banner (I think) and you run for backups - before Sabrina could do anything, most of your comrades wasn't alive - whole banner died - and everything is ok? But when sorceress do that is that wrong?

When Seltric or Vandergrift (not sure) came to scene, you fighted with some soldier - "honor fight" and what he did? He asked you for mercy, you gave him that, but that idiot just killed him - that is noble war and fight? To kill own soldier who simply lost normal fight? As well as he hanged every third scout (he couldn't know if that was trully their fault).

Historically, Henselt was in the right. Aedirn took Lormark from Kaedwen, and Henselt simply wanted a piece of native Kaedweni land back.

That is not whole truth. Lormark was part of Aedirn - just Henselt used war with Nilfgaard as reason, for his "help" to people of North Aedirn. If I remember correctly, he is just liar, which build his reason on his few years old invasion into Aedirn. Demawend told him, how acted his army - read about this and then you can compare that with acts of Sabrina.

Does any conventional war gives a right to any idiot with a nuke to drop it and irradiate both sides?

I see that in different light - I see no reason, why some idiot even starts that war. And all faults is on his head.
Nuke is not perfect thing to compare with - this spell just killed a lot of SOLDIERS - men which came there for death or to kill. And they get that - maybe more they ever wanted, but I don't see any problem there.

Kings (emperor) led thousands and thousands men to death, just for their power. For bigger lands, for glory and other silly reasons. Thousand men died, thousands civilian people were killed, whole countries were burned ... that is your "regular" war by noble kings.

I already compared acts of sorceresses and acts of kings, but - just for you ...
Loc Muinne for example - I always hear, how Philippa (or Sheala) was cruel, when she wanted to burn that city down - but there were mainly armies, envys, kings and other non-civilian persons, but even that - it was terrible, but when regullar army raid that city, killed all civilian inhabitants, all children and women, that was fine? Or when Emhy burned down whole countries - that was fine, because that was regullar war, no matter how many innocent people died, but when is just one city burned down, is that the problem?
(of course, not only emperor's army did that things)

I don't really get why anybody even conceive to justify Sabrina's actions. I can get what reasons people may have to justify Hiroshima

I can't justify agressive actions - like wars, not weapons, which ends that war. I don't believe in any "honor deaths", regullar weapons,... when someone starts war, he has to count with death. There are just two things, which are important for me - who started that and what about innocent people.
Hiroshima was also civilian city, if only military base was hit, by weapon, which kills just soldiers, there would be no doubts about that action.

She was a state official, it was her duty to attend to well-being of Kaedweni nation, but she chose to mass-murder her own people, those she was supposed to protect from magical danger.

She was member of the Lodge and I believe in their actions. I think their state should be better than Kaedwen or Aedirn, Temeria,...

I don't really get why anybody can feel in the right when they disregard the duties they have here and now

Henselt had duties from Cintra and he "pissed on it", so why he could count on duties of others?

in favor of some abstract principle, or some idealistic, or utopic political system, and start perpetrating heinous crimes with ease.

Show me side, which didn't do any crime..

She burned them alive - Henselt burned her alive. Justice served.

And what about his attacks and wars which he started - same princip of justice - kill him same way, how human died because of him?

It is very sad that when something does not go their way, some sorceresses go for a mass murder by fire. Sabrina massacring two armies, Philippa and Sile ready to burn alive the entire Loc Muinne, including all the sorcerers in there...

Of course - Loc Muinne .. how many people were burned alive or killed by armies of each side? How many towns burned down Nilfgaard,...?
And what about that ending, where were all sorceresses in Loc Muinne killed by that idiots? Is that better?

You just pointed on few actions of sorceresses and marked them as the worst side. You forgot how much blood kings have on their hands, about all wars they started, special forces - focused on torturing, civilian victims, burned villages - all goes to very high numbers. And you put two bad actions of sorceresses agains it and they are worse?

 

[vivaxardas2015]

All your arguments amount to the following - someone else does a lot of crap, there are a lot of murderers in the world, kings and emperors start wars, and because of this anyone is perfectly justified to commit mass murder, and to kill innocent people as well using any means in their disposal, in order to promote their goals, does not matter which ones.

If to follow your logic through, in a real world any act of terrorism, massacre, or genocide against any nation would be justified. Evidently, I do not see it this way. By my lights, even though all sides in TW2 commit a lot of bad acts, sorceresses firmly moved into terrorism territory. The Lodge is not a legitimate power, it does not have any authority from any nation or group of people, besides themselves, they strike at the most vulnerable moment, with complete disregard of possible casualties, by using unconventional weapons, without clearly expressed goals, without their opponents even given a chance to surrender, or to have an opportunity to negotiate. Simply when something in the world does not go their way, they drop in and murder people for some reason known only to them, and no one else. Well, if you think it is no worse then the states starting wars, I doubt any arguments can convince your otherwise.

And no, Lormark was historically a Kaedweni land. It was stolen from Kaedwen quite some time ago, and Henselt made it his goal to get it back. When he negotiated with Nilfgaard, he wanted to get back what was historically his. Geralt talks about this on Iorveth's path, he admits that concerning Lormark Henselt has a legitimate claim.

 

[wichat]

In the real world many people don't want thier countries been in war. There's no one war in the history which wasn't be started by an ambitious man disguising his reasons under religion, civlization or another kind of higher power tool on another man. Fear is the most powerful weapon, and how to manage it successfully the art of the despot.

 

[sfinx]

All your arguments amount to the following - someone else does a lot of crap, there are a lot of murderers in the world, kings and emperors start wars, and because of this anyone is perfectly justified to commit mass murder, and to kill innocent people as well using any means in their disposal, in order to promote their goals, does not matter which ones.

I am not saying - they are perfectly justified - I just said - murderer can't sentence another murderer and blame him (her) for his crimes. That is what I pointed on.

Spoiler

If to follow your logic through, in a real world any act of terrorism, massacre, or genocide against any nation would be justified. Evidently, I do not see it this way. By my lights, even though all sides in TW2 commit a lot of bad acts

Let's agree on this. I am not saying, you are wrong and I have patent on the best decisions about witcher's world, but we are on discussion board, so I've been trying to justify my decisions.

Sorceresses firmly moved into terrorism territory. The Lodge is not a legitimate power, it does not have any authority from any nation or group of people, besides themselves, they strike at the most vulnerable moment, with complete disregard of possible casualties

I think their original goals were the best possibilities for whole north. I don't like word "terrorism" - many times is not used correctly. Their goal is not some sort of terrorist things, if army raids villages, if soldiers kill civilians, where is death of innocents - that is "terrorism" for me.
But if their actions involve mainly armies or other interested sides - that is just 'competition' (don't take this word too literally). There is no 'honor' or nobility - those are just words. Every side doesn't hasitate to use as much power as they can to reach their goals. They haven't got problem with civilian victims and other really bad things on their way for power.

But I see difference on the side of sorceresses - they (but that was action just from Sabrina) killed thousands soldiers - that is OK for me - as I said - soldier's death isn't problem for me. They are killing, they have to count with their own death, they are interested in fight, they are not innocent. And weapons? Every side use the best weapons, just soldiers can't use magic, but they are killing the most enemies as they can, so did Sabrina

But when Order of flaming rose hunted witches, non-human, when kings didn't do anything with pogroms, when their wars led to death of many innocents - that is big problem for me. When they burned Loc Muinne - full of civilian people - that is bad, when sorceress wanted to burn that city filled by armies and conspirators and murderers - that is not big deal for me.

by using unconventional weapons, without clearly expressed goals, without their opponents even given a chance to surrender

As I said - look how ended surrending of that poor soldier in "honorable" fight. Leaders of army aren't better - I don't care if that was just one soldier or many of them - principe is same. Where was chance to surrender for civilian people, when Nilfgaard came? when armies of the North came? I repeat - that is much worse - when soldier dies, it's maybe sad, but normal, no matter how he died, but civilian victims are war crimes and much worse.
When it comes to "unconventional" weapons - look how many people were tortured (to death) - that is conventional way to kill enemy? Look on Foltest't friend Roche - as Foltest said about him - he was very good in torturing and loosing victims during that. As I remember - his last victim was priest ... is that better than some fireballs on battlefield?

And what about dragons - is that unconventional weapon? Maybe is - and dragon should not use fire in fight, because that is bad, but dragon hunting is normal. I see similarity there - there were already some witch hunts - but that is normal. There were rainds on non-human, but that is also normal. But when one sorceress strikes back - that is the worst? When Squirrels organized their fight against human - is that also bad?

Same with Philippa - when she was so powerful and so respected - she deserves to be blinded, but when every king dreams about same thing - that is normal.

Simply when something in the world does not go their way, they drop in and murder people for some reason known only to them, and no one else. Well, if you think it is no worse then the states starting wars, I doubt any arguments can convince your otherwise.

When your actins involve innocent civilians - which every war does - that is the worst. Decimating of some army isn't really bad for me.

And no, Lormark was historically a Kaedweni land. It was stolen from Kaedwen quite some time ago, and Henselt made it his goal to get it back. When he negotiated with Nilfgaard, he wanted to get back what was historically his. Geralt talks about this on Iorveth's path

Maybe you are right, I don't take game as main source, I said what I read in books. If game changed that... OK.

‘Upper Aedirn,’ Dijkstra spoke again, ‘has only been part of Kaedwen since last summer. More specifically, from the twenty-four of July last year. From the moment that Kaedwen sent in occupational forces.’

___________________
I am sorry for my crimes against english speaking countries , if I wrote something wrong (sure I did), don't hasitate and correct me. Thanks.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

I am not saying - they are perfectly justified - I just said - murderer can't sentence another murderer and blame him (her) for his crimes. That is what I pointed on.

Spoiler

Let's agree on this. I am not saying, you are wrong and I have patent on the best decisions about witcher's world, but we are on discussion board, so I've been trying to justify my decisions.

I think their original goals were the best possibilities for whole north. I don't like word "terrorism" - many times is not used correctly. Their goal is not some sort of terrorist things, if army raids villages, if soldiers kill civilians, where is death of innocents - that is "terrorism" for me.
But if their actions involve mainly armies or other interested sides - that is just 'competition' (don't take this word too literally). There is no 'honor' or nobility - those are just words. Every side doesn't hasitate to use as much power as they can to reach their goals. They haven't got problem with civilian victims and other really bad things on their way for power.

But I see difference on the side of sorceresses - they (but that was action just from Sabrina) killed thousands soldiers - that is OK for me - as I said - soldier's death isn't problem for me. They are killing, they have to count with their own death, they are interested in fight, they are not innocent. And weapons? Every side use the best weapons, just soldiers can't use magic, but they are killing the most enemies as they can, so did Sabrina />/>/>/>/>/>/>/>

But when Order of flaming rose hunted witches, non-human, when kings didn't do anything with pogroms, when their wars led to death of many innocents - that is big problem for me. When they burned Loc Muinne - full of civilian people - that is bad, when sorceress wanted to burn that city filled by armies and conspirators and murderers - that is not big deal for me.

As I said - look how ended surrending of that poor soldier in "honorable" fight. Leaders of army aren't better - I don't care if that was just one soldier or many of them - principe is same. Where was chance to surrender for civilian people, when Nilfgaard came? when armies of the North came? I repeat - that is much worse - when soldier dies, it's maybe sad, but normal, no matter how he died, but civilian victims are war crimes and much worse.
When it comes to "unconventional" weapons - look how many people were tortured (to death) - that is conventional way to kill enemy? Look on Foltest't friend Roche - as Foltest said about him - he was very good in torturing and loosing victims during that. As I remember - his last victim was priest ... is that better than some fireballs on battlefield?

And what about dragons - is that unconventional weapon? Maybe is - and dragon should not use fire in fight, because that is bad, but dragon hunting is normal. I see similarity there - there were already some witch hunts - but that is normal. There were rainds on non-human, but that is also normal. But when one sorceress strikes back - that is the worst? When Squirrels organized their fight against human - is that also bad?

Same with Philippa - when she was so powerful and so respected - she deserves to be blinded, but when every king dreams about same thing - that is normal.

When your actins involve innocent civilians - which every war does - that is the worst. Decimating of some army isn't really bad for me.

Maybe you are right, I don't take game as main source, I said what I read in books. If game changed that... OK.

___________________
I am sorry for my crimes against english speaking countries />/>/>/>/>/>/>/> , if I wrote something wrong (sure I did), don't hasitate and correct me. Thanks.

It is a very strange thing you are saying about Loc Muine. That if it is Flaming Rose killing less people (only sorcerers) - it is not OK, but when the dragon kills everyone (both sorcerers and others), it is fine. Somehow it sounds that any massacre the Lodge is doing is permissible, and when the others do a lesser thing, it is wrong. If dragon succeed, there would be immense casualties among civilians as well, because every mage who came to the summit would be burned alive as well. So do not delude yourself into thinking that the Lodge does not hurt civilians.

When a soldier dies in a fight for his country, it is tragic, but normal. But just being a soldier does not mean to surrender his right not to be murdered by any crazy chick with a flame thrower. Soldiers are not criminals, and they do not surrender their basic human rights. I do not know anything about you, and whether you have a draft in your country, but if you were a soldier for a period of time, you wouldn't probably think that it was OK for any shadow organization to fire bomb your camp. So it is very sad that you believe it is OK for everyone to murder soldiers just because they are soldiers.

I could understand you if you really say that all of them are bad. I would agree with this. Personally I would really want to kill Iorveth and squirrels in general, the Flaming Rose, and sorceresses. The state leaders are a different matter, they do a lot of bad things, but they are the leaders because of some form of a social contract, they provide a stable social organization and keep a social chaos at bay. So in the world of TW2 they are a lesser evil. Even with all the wars they wage it is still better then the disintegration of a society, and an utter chaos without any law and order. That's why even though I do not like the Northern kings, I am ready to put up with them. The Empire is a slightly different matter. Emhyr does not have any right to rule the North, but they already have a social structure, laws and order, something to support their claim that they would make the entire North better off as an imperial province.

But you in essence give excuse for a group of people to murder everyone they want. Just think about it - who a hell do they think they are to decide who lives and who dies, and what is better for the North? Just some bitches who got together with a certain vision of the North, so frigging what? Does it give them any right to impose it on others with fire? I get it, you like them. The way they look, the way they talk, they are cool girls. So what, beautiful women like Sabrina got more right to murder then fat old kings like Henselt? They are not a lesser evil, they are an extra evil, exactly the same as the dumb fanatics of the Flaming Rose with their own vision of the North, in the land where there is enough of it already, and they do not have any excuse or justification for doing what they are doing. As far as I can see the Lodge and the Flaming Rose are in exactly the same situation - a group of people with a vision who do whatever it takes to realize it. If you believe the Order is a group of bastards and mass-murderers, then rationality requires to believe the same about the Lodge as well.