Regarding Precious Cargo quest (Spoilers)

[Riven-Twain]

And now, imagine discussion about this kind of small side quest:

-"Greetings stranger. My grand-grand-grand-grand-grandfather lost valuable ring in cave nearby. And since my family consists of incompetent idiots, we could not find it for almost 200 years.Will you please bring it to me? I'll pay 10 septims."

-"Yes."

Well, if, once you enter the cave, you discover that this ring is not a family heirloom at all, but an ancient treasure of power, guarded by a wraith of a ravished and murdered noblewoman, whose soul cannot rest in peace, until the blood of the last heir of her killer is brought to her; and that the man, who asked you to retrieve the ring, is not such an idiot as he appears, but, in truth, the head of a cult of necromancers, attempting to influence the politics of the local barony, whose ruler is the last heir of the man who slew the lady, to cover a scandal, and who fears the vengeance of the wraith; then, we might have a discussion like this . . . but, probably not.

 

[Inshabel]

If this guy threw me a couple of orens for retrieving the box then I wouldn't give one flying **** about the context. That's between Nilfgaard and the Northern Kingdoms.

 

[Ljesnjanin]

Well, if, once you enter the cave, you discover that this ring is not a family heirloom at all, but an ancient treasure of power, guarded by a wraith of a ravished and murdered noblewoman, whose soul cannot rest in peace, until the blood of the last heir of her killer is brought to her; and that the man, who asked you to retrieve the ring, is not such an idiot as he appears, but, in truth, the head of a cult of necromancers, attempting to influence the politics of the local barony, whose ruler is the last heir of the man who slew the lady to cover a scandal, and who fears the vengeance of the wraith; then, we might have a discussion like this

Man, this is great quest...I like the story behind it.

but, probably not.

Yeah...No need to complicate things, just follow the quest marker, kill some giant rats on the way and that's it.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Man, this is great quest...I like the story behind it.

Yeah...No need to complicate things, just follow the quest marker, kill some giant rats on the way and that's it.

Ah, yes, but those giant rats are the creations of a sorcerer, who has been dabbling in dangerous mutations, and is presently at war with the cult of necromancers, who . . . .

 

[OliverDK]

I won't pursue this much further, in deference to the topic of the thread, but I will remark that the sanction of a professional army has never fully prevented warriors from committing atrocities in war. Rather, the soldiers of a nation's army become the weapons wielded by their leaders, who are, in turn, largely guided only by their own moral compasses in pursuit of their agendas. The soldiers who commit deeds of cruelty and savagery under the shield of an established military have the excuse that they were 'only following orders', and not their own moral compasses. It's a very fine line, and a murkiness hangs about it. But that's something to contemplate.

As you say there's not much reason to take this much further in general terms. I used the word guerrilla warriors very intentionally and not freedom fighter or underground resistant to not spread any confusion. I think people have a wrong view of guerrilla warriors as some kind of freedoms fighter which history simply can't back up. there's a reason today most guerrilla organizations are thought of as terror groups.

And while there of course can be a discussion whether that is abusive or power of oppressive governments is to me not relevant as I was talking about a guerrilla warrior as it is defined to my understanding and not the blurred line in between. And I am well aware of there are certain groups fighting for freedom in it's truest form that apply some guerrilla tactics in their arsenal but that is something completely else as they still honor the conduct of not sacrifice innocents in the process for their goal. Guerrilla warriors rarely if ever take that consideration.

Anyway in my initial post I mistook it for being in Redania and not Temeria. A big blunder I admit but at that time I saw him as a guerrilla warrior that have taken matters into his own hands guided by his own goal and morale compass instead of doing the right thing and enlist with the fighting forces.

So just letting him go would have been a no go for me for the simple reason that maybe tomorrow he and his brothers in arms would take on a village that didn't agree with their views. Why do I think that? Because he already showed his real character by lying to his teeth. So to me he lacked any kind of honesty, valor and moral by sending someone to do his dirty work and when faced with that fact he ran like a coward instead of owning up.

And that was my reasoning for handing him over in that case. Do that mean I wound leave him to be tortured or executed? That's a real possibility yes and I am far from comfortable with it as torture or execution in any circumstances goes against my own beliefs. But in my view I judged that to be the "less evil" in the long run because I saw him as a guerrilla warrior. I think we can both agree it would be right up there in CDPR sleeves to have later shown that by letting him go you could have stumbled upon a scene where he and his brethren would have slaughter some innocent people or something up that alley.

But again that was before @Scholdarr.452 made me realize my big blunder that he is Temarian and we are in Termaria which is completely occupied bu Nilfgaard and in that case I will most likely let him go as I see him as a freedom fighter, still with questionable morale and motives but a freedom fighter nonetheless. However there might still be a nasty surprise in store by letting him go. That wouldn't surprise me one little bit.

 

[Lieste]

He is toast. If he wanted the medicine "For Temeria!", he should have been upfront about what he was doing there.
If he'd have said there was an aborted attempt to steal Nilfgaardian medical supplies, and the cargo was lost, I'd have been prepared to consider retrieving it. With an attempt to trick and lie to me... no way. Plus he ran.... never run from a wolf.

 

[Kassandrian]

In the books Emhyr is actually depicted as an extremely competent ruler,
certainly ruthless without boundaries but extremely prideful concerning the "wellfare" of his country.
Temeria right now is in a state of dissaray anyways, and this is a classical "lesser evil defined by your viewpoints" choice.

I for my part tend to lean towards the Nilfgardians,
but it really depends on how the local commander handles his new territory. There is not much good in supporting a guerilia war that is obviously almost lost already and does not improve upon the quality of the local's life.

 

[adridu59]

He is toast. If he wanted the medicine "For Temeria!", he should have been upfront about what he was doing there.
If he'd have said there was an aborted attempt to steal Nilfgaardian medical supplies, and the cargo was lost, I'd have been prepared to consider retrieving it. With an attempt to trick and lie to me... no way. Plus he ran.... never run from a wolf.

But then again the guy does not know who Geralt is siding up with.

 

[Lieste]

Why not say his 'driver' was shot by bandits? Stupid story, certainly not brain of Temeria.
As I say, I can choose to go along with a request or not... but I strongly prefer to not be lied to. For my Geralt it is approximating a death sentence.

 

[ferryman10]

I know this is highly speculative ad definitely won't be the case, but do we actually know what's in the box? Maybe both sides are lying and there's some other item inside. All we see is a "Locked strongbox" that is described as Quest item/Common item. Maybe the "medicine" is actually fisstech, which would correspond with the guardsman's statement about easing the pain of ill soldiers.

Also another thing I'm curious about is, whether you can open the box yourself in the case you decide to keep it (highly unprobable), maybe obtaining a rare ingredient that you would have to hunt for otherwise. Again this probably isn't possible as it seems the box is generic quest item for those kinds of "delivery" quests, but it would be interesting to have such option.

 

[StormKorp]

I tend to like/respect highly disciplined, large Empires so probably I would side with them. However is too early to say, it depends on what other characters I care will think about them and how these factions will treat me.
Admitedly I've not read the books yet but for what i've seen Northmen seem as bad as the Empire, racists, treacherous and disloyal.

 

[BlackWolf500.298]

F**** the war. The medicine will help either side.

 

[Darkhollow]

I would probably either let him go with the medicine (I hate Nilgardians and have killed them at every opportunity in Witcher 2) or follow him all the way back to his leader and talk to him and see how to fix that from there.

 

[JasonShepard]

Honor? Really? Sorry, but this is not a fairy tale with white knights riding on white horses. Nilfgaardians invaded the country, killed civilians, raided the countryside, burnt down villages, like they did before. What's the "honor" in that? What's the honor in invading a foreign kingdom? Don't come up with "murderer" or "warrior without honor". That's just double standards.

And the Northern Kingdom is perfect? The monarchs aren't just as bad as the Nilfgaardians?

And staying neutral would mean that you let him go. If you don't care about the war at all you don't care about one soldier killing another. You would let them fight out their war without getting involved. Handing over the guy to the black means that you indeed get involved. You take side for the blacks and you help them by handing over an underground Temerian soldier. That's many things, but it's far from staying out of the conflict and being neutral...

Nothing is really neutral in this situation. You hand a murderer over to the Nilfgaards or let him go with medicine to help the Temerians. Both parties are equally shit. Taking the medicine is the most neutral choice, but it also deprives both parties of what they need.

No. He shot an enemy soldiers who was supposed to supply the enemy army with medicine and therefore to strengthen the enemy army. Cutting down supply lines is a regular tactics in war, especially if you have to use guerilla tactics due to your side being to small or weak for open conflict.

Soldiers? The guy was wearing clothes, not armor. He was unprotected and alone. That wasn't a supply line, it was a delivery. The medicine was being used to ease the pain of dying soldiers. I don't know how that strengthens their army. Killing a man on their way to deliver medicine to help the dying isn't very innocent nor does it help the Northern Kingdoms.

He's chicken, I agree. Is that the reason why you sentence him to torture and death? Where's the honor in that? You know that the Nilfgaardians have no mercy at all. They will likely torture the guy to get more information about the Temerians and because the guys is chicken he will likely speak which will lead to more dead Temerians. And YOU are the one responsible for these dead people if you hand over the guy...

He's a coward AND a murderer (like most soldiers in The Witcher series). Bodies will pile up either way as there's a war going on. Both sides are not innocent.

 

[Mekari]

Interesting thread. In the books Nilfgaard and the Northern Kingdoms each had their good and bad moments, both were not beyond pillaging, impaling, burning, hanging etc, I could argue that,in the books, they did all these things in equal measure so I cannot see how either side could be considered bad guys when it's really about the evil you can personally live with. For me this is easy, Geralt is a Witcher, and stays neutral whenever he can.

 

[StormKorp]

Interesting thread. In the books Nilfgaard and the Northern Kingdoms each had their good and bad moments, both were not beyond pillaging, impaling, burning, hanging etc, I could argue that,in the books, they did all these things in equal measure so I cannot see how either side could be considered bad guys when it's really about the evil you can personally live with. For me this is easy, Geralt is a Witcher, and stays neutral whenever he can.

Problem is you can't be neutral from what i've seen. Either the medicine go to Temerian soldiers or Nilfgaard ones. So what would you do then?

 

[Frontovika]

If the soldier was honest about his allegiance in the first place, I wouldn't hesitate to support him. But since he ran away from me then it's better that I turn him over to the Nilfgaardians.

 

[wichat]

And the Northern Kingdom is perfect? The monarchs aren't just as bad as the Nilfgaardians?

I guess Scholdarr.452 is actually pointing about invasors. We are talking about thw world of TW3 and in that moment there's an invasor force and a bnch of villages and cities burnt and destroyed. I doubt Scholdarr.452 didn't say the same against the Northen Kingdoms and their Kings if they were the invasors. This is the main difference right now.

 

[Mekari]

Problem is you can't be neutral from what i've seen. Either the medicine go to Temerian soldiers or Nilfgaard ones. So what would you do then?

Seemed like there was with the take the medicine but let him go option.

 

[StormKorp]

Seemed like there was with the take the medicine but let him go option.

Woudn't that mean you give the medicine to Nilfgaard??