Well, then it is not fear they based their punishment on. IT is lust. Too bad, they list lust as one of the seven great sins.

Ofc the knights can take the matter in their own hands but pls make it death or flesh torture if their crimes deserve it.
well, i think i once said before that i am not really against killing the sorceresses. I am against the rapes.

Yeah I can kinda understand that. Some of the shit that's going on in this gameworld is really difficult to accept in the 21st century.

I never payed attention to what I looted from those guys (was the end of the game, what did it matter, or so i thought) that's actually pretty cool.
And I am not saying rape is ok. I am merely saying that punishing a group for the actions of an individual is wrong. Try as they might, no commander ever has 100% control over their unit, because they are not robots. they are not mind crontrolled, they are human beings with individual wants, needs and vices. And if they are in a situation where they are off the job, as it were, their commander's influence doesn't count for much at all.

Did you do that succubus quest at Vergen? would you have advocated killing all the Scoia'tael because that one guy was murdering guys in a jealous rage?

borrowing your logic: "well that's too bad, if they didn't want to get raped or killed(form of punishment not really relevant), they shouldn't be sorceresses"

should triss merigold be punished cause she was a member of the lodge?

I wasn't talking to you about rape >_>...it was to Ren02

Well, Ioverth wants to kill that guy too so i will let it pass. The knights on the other hand, like Ren02 said, probably think raping the sorceress was their suitable punishment.
Pls understand that i wanted to kill the order of knights because of their thinking using something as vile as rape to punish the sorceresses (nvm they are still only apprentices) is still righteous
well, if you gonna say the order of knights will kill the 'few' evildoers in question then you're right, i should back off.


However, if the knight won't do that...
tough luck.
well..people all die
are you scared of death?
Yes.? Then you shouldn't be human >_>.

Since when punishment include rape anyway? That is merely added in by individuals, not on any paper...too bad.

Triss merigold should be punished
THAT IS ONLY if she's still considered a member of the lodge
Fortunately, she was pretty much kicked out long before demavend's death.

ah, but you don't have enough information to make the judgement on what the commanders are or are not doing to discipline the men that get out of line. They could be very harsh with them afterwards, for all you know. If they are not punishing them, yeah that's a problem. But torching the city is still killing innocents.

wait. wait. I admit to being rather PO'd with Triss after certain revelations, (she never thought of trying to , oh I dunno, WARN me that Philippa and Sile were likely up to something, even if she didn't have all the details? she vaguely warns about Sile, but she didn't let on all she knew, and it came across as jealousy as a result.) she wasn't involved in the murders, and een if she ahd pieced it all together sooner, would not have been able to stop them. she's deserving of a stern talking-to, but not much else.

And you dont have enoguh information to make judgement whether the commanders are doing something to discipline the men. Like i said, if death meets the evildoers then i will gladly backs off.


are we talking about killing the whole order of knights or we're back to whether torching down the city is bad. pls choose one
Im being aimed at by too many arguments atm >_>

Your proposed method of killing the order of knights WAS dragonfire.

But ok, lets say it's just marching the entire company tot he gallows. still wrong.

And with no evidence either way, no action should be taken. You need PROOF to sentence someone, especially if the punishment is as severe as death.

They didn't need proof to rape the sorceresses
...
oh well,
"And with no evidence either way, no action should be taken." - so actions should only be taken if one have sold evidence?
Did you know eyewitness is actually not counted as solid proof? because tere is no evidence the witness is saying the truth...

"And with no evidence either way, no action should be taken."
You gona leave stennis to become king? The game purposely left you no solid evidence...

I saved her. I didn't mean to, it was a reflex. Someone was in trouble and I could fix it if I acted fast enough...so I did. Then, I screamed, "AARRGGGHHH! Stupid reflexes!"

Actually, I did find enough proof to show he was most likely behind it, but I left it up to Saskia to punish him, that's more her place than mine, she chose to be merciful and he did end up king, yes.

And i stand by what I said about evidence. in medieval times, I'd accept eye witness accounts, to a degree, since they had less means of figuring things out otherwise. But I think there's a reason there's a number of quests in the game that involve you trying to piece together evidence rather than just going berserk on whoever looks guilty at first glance.

In 2 playthroughs I spared her life and Letho's. In my third playthrough (Vernon Roche) I will slaughter them all. Sile, Saskia AND Letho (I let Vernon Roche kill Henselt). If there is a possibility in the near future to obliterate the whole lodge of sorceresses... then I will slaughter them all. Same goes for Radovid... who hadn't the balls to free me out of his prison. That damn King really forgot what happened in Temeria...

Perhaps my Geralt should become an assassin of Kings :)

Please, please, please, make sure Adda is good and dead before you kill her husband! I don't think the Northern kingdoms are big enough for her apatite.

Triss would be my eye witness at to whether what knights should i kill then
If they prevents me from killnig them or refuse to admit raping sorceresses is a crime then
tough luck for them.
Radovid did plan to free you after the summit. He just knows that you might want to ruin the summit. which might gain him temerian lands

My point still stands, opinions aside. I never said I was stating my opinions as fact, I merely said they were logical conclusions. So, I say to you: stop putting words in my mouth, it doesn't help your case.

As has been said before, even by the time Geralt and company leave the city, it's a ghost town. Therefore, how long it takes the dragon to heal is irrelevant. So, why are you still making such a huge deal about the dragon coming back to kill everyone? It can't either way since nobody's left for it to kill.

And then there are you constant statements about how the knights raping the sorceresses should die. "Like i said, if death meets the evildoers then i will gladly backs off. " Yeah. I agree, they should die. They won't, however, so you're stuck. Geralt's not going to go track them down, they won't be burned to death by a dragon.