Let's say, I suspect that you can potentially steal money from your neighbor because you have a backyard access to his house. Would it be "right" or "wrong" to put you in jail for that based on my suspicion?
What's up with these botched analogies guys? An equivalent would be the you having the key to the dead neighbour's AR15s' (weaponisable Catriona research) locker, and forcing you to give it up instead of giving it to a mobster (Radovid). No suspicion or jail possibly involved in any way.
---------- Updated at 02:40 AM ----------
Yes, on the spot it's pretty clear where Henselt's death leads. You were given information that Henselt has no heir. In a medieval monarchy, no heir is a recipe for a civil war or for collapse of a kingdom after the ruler's death as distant relatives and neighboring countries will start to fight for the throne. Geralt is old and experienced enough to know that.
Right.. unlike at all what happens after Sheala's assassination of Demavend. I mean it is absolutely clear having one living heir guarantees peace and stability and automatically assures a smooth transition..
Yes, but only theoretically, because a peasant is not proficient enough to reliably kill a knight by sniping into the visor with a bow or crossbow, and won't be able to handle well lance, mace, morning star, or other specialized weapons, which can harm the knight.
The point I was trying to make is that the entire analogy makes no sense for the equivalents picked. Moreover, even accepting for sake of argument the preposterous parallel, I highlighted how his cast-iron argument was flawed.
Just like a "knight in full plate" is not invincible, so even a very powerful mage has no guarantee of getting out unharmed in a confrontation with even theoretically much weaker opponents (his argument).
With the difference that the main strenght of the knight is his superior defence, while the mage's is offense. And the correct comparison would actually be not a knight vs one paesant. But a knight (even in full regalia) versus a mob of paesants. Which would end badly.
E
ven conceding all the absurd gamey assumptions it'd work like this, in your own personal madeup situations and rules:
paesant : knight = knight : sorcerer
mob of paesants vs knight = mob of knights vs sorcerer
In the specific case we were discussing, ergo Triss vs 1000s of armed men in Novigrad, you two would be trying to argue this: she survives because one single knight would survive and prevail versus 1000s of paesants.
Totally agree. The mages in Novigrad are portrayed as peasant refugees.
Almost as if they're not Sorcerers but regular magic practitioners. And please again (this is the 14th time I ask this) could you please elaborate on how exactly would proper Sorcerers deal with the situation differently? Apart from escaping with teleportation or forcing their way out of the city? If you're arguing that I'd agree, if they indeed were all if not at least some, Sorcerers and not all except Triss not suited for such a fight.
---------- Updated at 01:15 PM ----------
Well, that's what she told Geralt - Saskia will turn Loc Muinne into a burning ruin, and nobody would learn about the Lodge's involvement. She said it herself, I wouldn't come up with this on my own because it is practically pretty much impossible to kill every witness of the events on the summit. So I would say it was their intent.
Don't know if you noticed this, but they'll say anything to defend their personal preference.
