Random questions (spoilers)

[violetdreams]

Random questions (spoilers)

I believe every forum needs such a topic. It's for those questions you wanted to ask, but they didn't seem grand enough to warrant a topic of their own and eventually you never got to talk about them. Please use the topic for your own, too!

The first random question:

The Henselt decision. The characters talked about it in a way I could not entirely understand and eventually I got confused about how they reacted to it. I let Roche have his way, because honestly who is Geralt to take decisions for him, then checked out a different solution out of curiousity. And the dialogue they had about it was very strange. See, Geralt says ~ "You didn't kill a defenseless Henselt but chose to battle inner demons." What inner demons? As I see it, Roche is on a killing spree when they come to Loc Muinne, he doesn't think "revenge is pointless, I have to let go", which would be "battling an inner demon" in that case. No, Roche is fine with killing everyone else involved, and as far as I see it, Henselt got to live only because of their awe for his royal status. So what "inner demon" did Geralt talk about, a sacred feeling of respect towards aristocracy?

 

[GuyNwah]

Roche is chock-full of "inner demons", starting with his childhood as a bastard. If ever there was a character straight out of Freud in a computer game, it is Roche.

To be ridiculously Freudian about it, Geralt persuaded Roche to continue to internalize his unresolved Oedipus complex rather than act it out by killing the notorious sire of bastards.

There's no respect toward aristocracy here. Geralt characterizes Henselt as a "cockroach" and points out that for Roche to kill him would be as meaningless as stepping on one. That's why Geralt speaks the way he does. It's far from any thought of regicide as an act of importance; it's pointing out that Henselt's death will resolve nothing.

 

[violetdreams]

I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable about psychology and can't understand what you mean. Reading up on that complex didn't help much, I don't know how Henselt figures into it. If it's about hating men, then what about the adored Foltest?

Geralt characterizes Henselt as a "cockroach" and points out that for Roche to kill him would be as meaningless as stepping on one.

Henselt is cockroach, but Dethmold is not? It looks like Roche didn't buy those words.

I'm not arguing, just trying to understand their reasoning, as well as yours. It seemed like Geralt used (arguably) beautiful but empty words about cockroaches. Why? To give Roche an excuse to walk away. Why? I've no idea. That's why I thought about Henselt's royal status. Throughout the game the word "kingslayer" and "regicide" hint at sacredness of the royal status. And then if you let Henselt die Roche admits that he didn't believe he was capable of killing him, which would be a strange thing to say about a cockroach.

 

[volsung]

I suppose Geralt is talking about Roche's internal struggle to focus on the task at hand, which is urgent and extremely important, instead of letting his past and his emotions come out in a burst of anger (as Roche is full of it). Roche most likely detests Henselt, and Henselt lying on the floor defenseless is as good as it gets to simply channel his hatred and get rid of him. But there are far more important things to accomplish, and Henselt's death will not improve their current situation. It is as pointless as stepping on a cockroach; it solves nothing. It might instead delay them, and what they need at that moment is time.

By choosing not to kill Henselt, as disgusting as he is, Roche is choosing to overcome an internal struggle and move on to pressing matters. It has nothing to do with Henselt being king of anything. At that point of social disarray, king, commoner and beggar are all worth the same. And since the game presents a series of royal assassinations that shape the future of entire nations, it is a strong statement that in that particular instance, one such assassination is worth nothing for their immediate cause. The ramifications of Henselt being dead or alive by the endgame are a different case.

 

[GuyNwah]

I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable about psychology and can't understand what you mean. :'(/> Reading up on that complex didn't help much, I don't know how Henselt figures into it. If it's about hating men, then what about the adored Foltest?

If it were that simple, there wouldn't be such a proliferation of schools of psychoanalysis

One may adore or grieve for one father figure, while hating and plotting violent death at one's own hand on another. See Hamlet for a detailed example.

The big difference between Vernon Roche and Hamlet the Dane is that Roche is able to act without wasting time and confusing himself with doublethink.

 

[araa]

Seems like there are some contradicting opinions here. Well, here's mine as well.

The main problem was the fact that by killing Henselt, Roche would become one of the bandits that he detested. He would be a kingslayer, just like Letho. What right would he then have to pursue the assassin of Foltest when he commited such crime himself?

And it wasn't out of respect for the aristocracy or Henselt's royal status. It was out of respect for the people of Kaedwen, who would have suffered because of internal struggles for power and anarchy. Henselt was an awful person but he was a good monarch. Besides, you do not kill a king without having a good replacement. Ever read/watched 'The Game of Thrones'?

The words about the cockroach seemed to me more like Geralt's attempt to cheer Roche up. Something like: "so well, you can't kill him but it's because he's below you, not the other way round, remember that - even though we both know that's not the case".

So "battling inner demons" was battling the will to take revenge on the one most responsible - Henselt. Though Roche could freely go on to kill Dethmold, no one really cared about him that much.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

You give Roche too much credit, and Henselt - too little. Roche conspired against Henselt for three years, and when at last Henselt figured it out, he ordered to execute the Blue Stripes. It is not worse then Foltest ordering to kill thousands of La Valette soldiers who had no choice but to fight for their liege lord. But Henselt raped Ves, and it was bad.

In any case, Roche is out for revenge, not to mete out justice. A guy who tortures people for pleasure (neither La Valette priest not Arnold survived his interrogation), and who beats up complaining peasants is pretty much as bad as Henselt. When Roche jumps and cuts down every Kedweni soldier he meets, I actually wanted to have an option to put him down right then. What a f* does they have to do with king's decision? Geralt spent time with them in a camp, they are quite good people, not worse then Temerians.

So would it be a great decision to remain neutral and to let one out of control son of a bitch, who is pretty insignificant on a grand scheme of things, to kill another son of a bitch who is much more important for the North? If you do not want anything to do with Nilfgaard, why to finish what assassins started? Would you help Letho to do what he does, and plunge another state into chaos because of some whore's son who was unable to keep his people safe, and who is jumping on every opportunity to torture and beat up helpless people?

This desicion was again all about politics, Henselt explained it to both of them - kill the only king who Nilfgaard will have to respect, and things will go real bad. Is it enough to make Roche, who serves the state, and whose duty includes keeping king's subjects save from danger, to realize that by killing Henselt he kills a potential ally and makes his own country worse off? To become an accomplice to the assassin who killed his own king? Duty vs. Revenge thing here.

When Roche agrees not to kill Henselt, he shows some restraint, and in this sense, he managed to overcome his blood-lust. To battle his inner demons, if you want. So it is a sort of internal victory for him, and for the North.

 

[wichat]

You give Roche too much credit, and Henselt - too little. Roche conspired against Henselt for three years, and when at last Henselt figured it out, he ordered to execute the Blue Stripes. It is not worse then Foltest ordering to kill thousands of La Valette soldiers who had no choice but to fight for their liege lord. But Henselt raped Ves, and it was bad.

In any case, Roche is out for revenge, not to mete out justice. A guy who tortures people for pleasure (neither La Valette priest not Arnold survived his interrogation), and who beats up complaining peasants is pretty much as bad as Henselt. When Roche jumps and cuts down every Kedweni soldier he meets, I actually wanted to have an option to put him down right then. What a f* does they have to do with king's decision? Geralt spent time with them in a camp, they are quite good people, not worse then Temerians.

So would it be a great decision to remain neutral and to let one out of control son of a bitch, who is pretty insignificant on a grand scheme of things, to kill another son of a bitch who is much more important for the North? If you do not want anything to do with Nilfgaard, why to finish what assassins started? Would you help Letho to do what he does, and plunge another state into chaos because of some whore's son who was unable to keep his people safe, and who is jumping on every opportunity to torture and beat up helpless people?

This desicion was again all about politics, Henselt explained it to both of them - kill the only king who Nilfgaard will have to respect, and things will go real bad. Is it enough to make Roche, who serves the state, and whose duty includes keeping king's subjects save from danger, to realize that by killing Henselt he kills a potential ally and makes his own country worse off? To become an accomplice to the assassin who killed his own king? Duty vs. Revenge thing here.

When Roche agrees not to kill Henselt, he shows some restraint, and in this sense, he managed to overcome his blood-lust. To battle his inner demons, if you want. So it is a sort of internal victory for him, and for the North.

Good and interesting point of view! />

 

[violetdreams]

Such diversity of opinions!

In political sense I hoped that Vergen can stand a chance to be RE-claimed if Henselt (and Stennis) are both dead, some peasant rebellion or two would do it... And there'd be no Henselt to tear off a half of Temeria (the country really grew on me thanks to TW1).

A funny thing just happened. I was sure that Radovid was asking about the assassin's death and accidentally told him that Geralt "knew how he died". It turned out that "he" was Henselt and not the assassin... so Geralt spilled his guts while I was watching in horror. How silly was that? I mean, how can you ever tell a king that you (or a person beside you) killed another king, why is there even such an option in the game! And Radovid reacted so normally, as if he didn't mind it at all. A suspected kingslayer just confessed about a king's death and he's ok with that.

What right would he then have to pursue the assassin of Foltest when he commited such crime himself?

I thought he cared for Foltest in a personal way, so it was sort of personal revenge? In that case who cares if he commited the same crime himself. Maybe that's not it, though...

 

[vivaxardas2015]

A suspected kingslayer just confessed about a king's death and he's ok with that. />/>/>/>/>

Actually, it seems to be the whole point of the story, so don't be surprised. If you ever saw a trailer where Shilard and Geralt discuss a situation in the North, Shilard quite sincerely tells Geralt - the North was victorious, you defeated us, but what a f** did you do with your victory? Four kings, former allies, now are at each other throats, ready to devastate their own neighbors.

The whole Nilfgaardian plot depended on Northern kings ready to kill each other, and the nobles conspiring to rip the realm to shreds. Henselt paying for kidnapped Foltest's heirs, Radovid who is very glad that Henselt is dead, Henselt not giving a damn whether Geralt killed Foltest or not, as long as he works for him, Foltest conspiring against Henselt, Radovid looking for an excuse to start a witch-hunt in order to further his political interests, and the Lodge out to carve its own kingdom from Aedirn in chaos.

That's why Letho said - you can't believe how many people were eager to help us! With a constant menace from the south it seems northern monarchs should have been more restrained in their endeavors, but none of them really gave a damn. As Shilard wrote to Emhyr, things as so bad here, that no real skill is needed for a diplomat to take an advantage of it, or to manipulate people into unleashing a chaos. All he had to do was, like a true humanitarian, simply to help them out with their own plans.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

...and as far as I see it, Henselt got to live only because of their awe for his royal status. So what "inner demon" did Geralt talk about, a sacred feeling of respect towards aristocracy?

I would say yes, there was a bit of respect for aristocracy involved in the decision which keeps Roche back. The fact is that aristocracy is essential for the normalized form and function of that society. Henselt's people are reliant on his strength of character for keeping order in their realm. So one reason Geralt can rationalize for not letting Roche kill Henselt is to prevent further chaos in the North. This reason is pretty obvious, but though I'd mention it anyways.

 

[dragonbird]

I don't think it's awe, or respect, just a recognition of the fact that, as vivaxardas said, there would be chaos in Kaedwen (and possibly Aedirn) if Henselt was killed without a replacement being around.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Yeah, I didn't mean Geralt revered Henselt's aristocracy or was humbled by it, but respected it in the sense that it was something worthy of consideration during his decision making.

 

[dragonbird]

OK. That I agree with.

 

[violetdreams]

What about Henselt's attitude? "You won't dare, I'm a king", "A flea has bitten a lion", is he just a pompous freak who worships himself?

I must admit he earned a bit of respect delivering that flea line from me. Not anybody would be able to breathe out such a line dying, supressing despair and pain.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Henselt is a king, and a good king, btw. To be a head of the state is significant in any civilization, be it medieval or modern. If Obama says - I am a president, he is not worshiping himself, he is stating a fact that he is a legitimate authority of the land. When you kill a man of such significance, who in a sense keeps and order in his realm, you'll have major negative consequences. Judging to flashbacks, they in TW universe believed in divine rights of kings, that kings were made protectors of their realms by gods themselves, and a regicide was not just a murder, but a crime against the entire realm. People, even career criminals, usually have some boundaries on crimes they can commit, and regicide was the most vile crime imaginable.

I like how Henselt behaves when Roche is about to kill him, and after he stabbed him. He is a brave man.

 

[violetdreams]

Another random question:

Why did the Emperor order Shilard killed? He looked like he was doing pretty well for Nilfgaard, but the letter stated that he "overstepped his bounds" or something along these lines. What exactly did he do that made the Emperor angry?

 

[wichat]

Henselt is a king, and a good king, btw. To be a head of the state is significant in any civilization, be it medieval or modern. If Obama says - I am a president, he is not worshiping himself, he is stating a fact that he is a legitimate authority of the land. When you kill a man of such significance, who in a sense keeps and order in his realm, you'll have major negative consequences. Judging to flashbacks, they in TW universe believed in divine rights of kings, that kings were made protectors of their realms by gods themselves, and a regicide was not just a murder, but a crime against the entire realm. People, even career criminals, usually have some boundaries on crimes they can commit, and regicide was the most vile crime imaginable.

I like how Henselt behaves when Roche is about to kill him, and after he stabbed him. He is a brave man.

Yes, and Letho kill kings so for every king he killed he is commiting a regicide which was not just a murder, but a crime against the entire realm... And not by "inner demons". Oh! and Henselt, according Spakwoski, is a racist and hate and despises anything that is not normal male human (Geralt included but he cannot avoid to respect and admire Geralt's human side). I mean, Geralt's world is plenty of strong grey characters, that's why Iike it.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Another random question:

Why did the Emperor order Shilard killed? He looked like he was doing pretty well for Nilfgaard, but the letter stated that he "overstepped his bounds" or something along these lines. What exactly did he do that made the Emperor angry?

It is a one million dollar question. It is one of those few random things. It is stupid on so many levels - to kill him before the summit, when all imperial plans against the mages will be ruined, with no explanation at all. Why not to wait when he returns to Nilfgaard? It is not like he is going anywhere.

I think CDPR had no idea how to kill Shilard without Geralt doing it, and they decided to make it in Tywin/Tyrion fashion, an unexpected crossbow bolt. I get it, CDPR draw so many parallels with GOT (Red Wedding is one of the most obvious), and Shilard is Tywin Lannister of TW2 I( guess it is one of the reasons I like him so much), but it was handled pretty silly. I am still pretty mad at Martin that he offed Tywin, and I am not really thrilled that CDPR went the same rout. But at least they gave us an alternative, and in my TW2 universe my Shilard never dies, always triumphs on a summit, and returns home to Nilfgaard.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Killing Shilard probably has to do with plot details which will be revealed in TW3.
I know some of the story from the books, so I know of the connection between the Emperor and Geralt. I'll only spoil it for you if you want me to.