It's essentially how you fight in an occupied territory. Would you give up the fight on your land because you dislike guerilla?
It's essentially how you fight in an occupied territory. Would you give up the fight on your land because you dislike guerilla?
Behind what sort of warrior would you stand? The difference between a guerilla and a freedom-fighter is often determined by history, and who writes it. While the methods may seem distasteful to notions of honour, unfortunately, ruthless tactics bring results that win wars. When you are outnumbered by a superior force, cunning -- what mediaeval knights called cowardice -- must take the place of valour in more traditional 'open and honest' bloodbaths.
It is not a new argument. Any form of fighting which is not upstanding and fair is looked down upon. When crossbows came into common use on the battlefield, gentlemen knights decried them as craven weapons: for they could slay from a distance, and a peasant might kill a king, whom he wouldn't dare to face with a sword. They said the same of the first firearms. Tactical advantages rarely are fair. So, if you're a member of a small band of fighters, battling an invader of far greater strength, you cannot depend upon bravery alone. To challenge the legions of Nilfgaard with a handful of men in a pitched battle may be very brave, and honourable, and worth a song, but it's not calculated to bring victory. Cunning, deception, archery, and other 'unsporting' deeds must serve.
I do not condone guerilla warfare -- no more than I condone any other warfare -- I merely know its gory history, and its brutal efficacy.
Last edited:
I can get behind people that fight for freedom in a occupied country if there's no way to enlist in a army of said country.
However people who in a country at war takes matters into their own hands and are guiding by nothing else but their own moral compass I can't get behind. They might be doing the right thing but more than often we have seen through history that they commit atrocities beyond imagination.
Not to mention that often we also see these kind of "warriors" that use guerrilla warfare have their own agenda but I will not go into specifics because there are so many and that's not what this thread is about. But just take a look around the world today and you will see the acts of violence and misery guerrilla warriors cause in pursuit of what they consider a legitimate claim or agenda.
If we go back on topic my view is that had this been in Redania he would be a murderer because if he wanted to fight he should have enlisted with the fighting army. As he then hadn't I would hand him over to preferentially some kind of authorities on the Redanian side if possible. I just couldn't with could conscience let him go and say oh well he just fought for freedom as I see him as a guerrilla warrior with his own morale compass.
But as I made a HUGE blunder and I admit I DID as I completely missed that this was in Temeria which is totally occupied by Nilfgaard I will let him go as he had no other option but to fight on his own for freedom as there is no army he can enlist with.
However people who in a country at war takes matters into their own hands and are guiding by nothing else but their own moral compass I can't get behind. They might be doing the right thing but more than often we have seen through history that they commit atrocities beyond imagination.
Not to mention that often we also see these kind of "warriors" that use guerrilla warfare have their own agenda but I will not go into specifics because there are so many and that's not what this thread is about. But just take a look around the world today and you will see the acts of violence and misery guerrilla warriors cause in pursuit of what they consider a legitimate claim or agenda.
If we go back on topic my view is that had this been in Redania he would be a murderer because if he wanted to fight he should have enlisted with the fighting army. As he then hadn't I would hand him over to preferentially some kind of authorities on the Redanian side if possible. I just couldn't with could conscience let him go and say oh well he just fought for freedom as I see him as a guerrilla warrior with his own morale compass.
But as I made a HUGE blunder and I admit I DID as I completely missed that this was in Temeria which is totally occupied by Nilfgaard I will let him go as he had no other option but to fight on his own for freedom as there is no army he can enlist with.
Yeah, I'll let him go. Still undecided if I want to keep the medicine or not though.
But I really appreciate the intricacy of the quest, even more so seeing how it's a minor one. While I do not agree with Geralt handing over someone to the Black Ones like that, I do appreciate CDPR putting in the choice.
More choice when it comes to quests, is always better.
But I really appreciate the intricacy of the quest, even more so seeing how it's a minor one. While I do not agree with Geralt handing over someone to the Black Ones like that, I do appreciate CDPR putting in the choice.
More choice when it comes to quests, is always better.
Probably let him go, but I'll keep the medicine...Than go to Black Ones, to ask some questions...
View attachment 12872
Mysterious deaths...Yeah, another great side quest is waiting...
View attachment 12872
Mysterious deaths...Yeah, another great side quest is waiting...
Attachments
-
cargo.JPG
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.
And that was a pretty easy choice, unless you liked terrorists. Harder to choose when the elves aren't involved, that's for sure.
So Precious Cargo's choice is as well as easier... who like Invasor who destroy your people and your culture?
For me it was not an easy choice. Starving opressed people killing for ideals vs Salamandra colaborator, criminal thief for money?
You could argue that they bring civilized world to the northern people (e.g. when they speak of burning rotten corpses which "has long been a standard in the civilized world") and aim (?) to unite humanity under a single banner to face when will happen with the prophecy (ice age). Also when you see the camp owner which asks a fair tribute to the peasants.
In a number of ways the northern monarchs are brutes like they start war for their own (flawed) interests like the La Valette war in TW2 for instance, and so forth.
I think it was important for CDP that Nilfgaard is not unambiguously evil.
The Temerian lies to you and then tries to kill you when you confront him, so he clearly didn't get the memo about the North being "your people". And it's the same with so many others in the North, they'd sooner spit in your face and attempt to cheat you for a job well done. You're right about the Nilfgaard being the invader though, even if they bring enlightenment to the Nordlings.
As for the choice in W1: you don't know that Haren is working with the Salamandra when you make that choice. And, considering that squirrels kill berrypickers for their freedom, yes, it's pretty easy. But that's a topic for another thread.
I can see the point of view of those who can support the Nilgaarian. But I can see the point of view of those who has been invaded without asking for it, losing thier lands, their families, their home.... all those people didn't go to the south to invad Nilfgaard. Why some people have the need to "save" the neiborghood country just because they don't have the same way of live?
In war times, who dare to be honest with a stanger with unknown intentions?
In war times, who dare to be honest with a stanger with unknown intentions?
He does not try to kill you, he flees on horseback. Also he lies because he fears denounciation (and rightfully so in the case of the Geralt presented in the video).
---------- Updated at 12:37 PM ----------
Sure, I'm just saying that from a certain point of view you can say after all ruling under Nilfgaard will probably bring more good than bad in longer term and now that they're there... I mean kind of like the roman empire long ago. They brought security and prosperity to the lands that they conquered.
Yeap, you don't just reveal your identity... This is Witcher world.... everyone can be traitor... or friend...
From soldier perspective - he doesn't have tell you all the details... only things you must know... build trust maybe he will reveal more... He has orders... I'm not surprised that he lied at all... My Geralt will help him... but it doesn't mean I trust him in 100%...
Heh.... a small quest provoked already 4 pages of comments... not bad not bad...
Heh.... a small quest provoked already 4 pages of comments... not bad not bad...
Just imagine what conversations the full game will spark! I think this is a good omen for the writing, eh, what?
Actually I'm very likely to choose giving him up to the Nilfgaardians.
Even though they are the invaders, they have strict discipline and the way they handle the locals is very different to how others would.
They trade for the goods they need, they don't just plunder them, which is a stark difference to what Temerians would have done.
Nilfgaard are not that bad, their kingdom prospers and the North could be better of under their rule.
It's a complicated world and the choices Geralt makes are also complicated and I love that. To me this is one of the charms of the Witcher world that no other game can come even close to.
Even though they are the invaders, they have strict discipline and the way they handle the locals is very different to how others would.
They trade for the goods they need, they don't just plunder them, which is a stark difference to what Temerians would have done.
Nilfgaard are not that bad, their kingdom prospers and the North could be better of under their rule.
It's a complicated world and the choices Geralt makes are also complicated and I love that. To me this is one of the charms of the Witcher world that no other game can come even close to.
I am going to pick letting him go.The question about the medicine remains, but since I am a loyal Temerian supporter (can't resist Foltest's charm :wub,for now I think I will let him take the medicine or as others have said try to follow him to his hideout(if any), but I worry that if there is a hideout they will probably attack us on sight in fear that the player maybe pro-Nilfgaard or simply against them.Can't wait till we start discussing quests and moral dilemmas kudos to the awesome community.
,for now I think I will let him take the medicine or as others have said try to follow him to his hideout(if any), but I worry that if there is a hideout they will probably attack us on sight in fear that the player maybe pro-Nilfgaard or simply against them.Can't wait till we start discussing quests and moral dilemmas kudos to the awesome community.
Last edited:
Good point. I suppose it'd be too much to expect any soldier to know that Geralt worked with Foltest on a few occasions. Or that witchers usually don't actively fight for Nilfgaard.
If Geralt were to turn around, would the Temerian not try to cut his throat? This is how guerrilla fighters work, after all.