To kill or not ? Radovid fierce (The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt)
Sure already was similar topic but still. Puzzled and nothing I can not decide what to do. On the one hand arrogant Nelfy, who in fact started the war in the North, and on the other hand crazy king, Slayer of witches, villains and the terror of those whom eternal flame recognizes the infidels. Mostly I want to hear the opinion of those who have read the books and knows Geralt. Which version is more canonical, what to do based on the actions and principles of Geralt. He always tried to avoid politics, and in another scenario certainly would not go against the king, but everything is not clear. The murder of Radovid is 100% win Ilfov, and if you do not intervene the genocide of mages and non-humans is obvious. Forgive and to respond adequately to justify its decision, Thank you.Geralt is so neutral that fought in the battle for the North and not just in political scrapes got. He can and wants to be neutral but not out. And a bodyguard book that could be. If you take the last book. But the fact that he's a log did so.
I watch most of the write to kill someone that writes about Dykstra and why most do not really understand one thing. If Geralt kills Radovid, it will prove that is a puppet of the witches if Dijkstra ascend to the throne, he will become a puppet of Philippi, the choice is obvious neutrality, and about the burning of Kovir there is Toussant and many other places out there while in the North of the house
Radovid2018
After telling him of the oppression everyone will stop, by the way, can end up being, he'll burn all with his hair because he's bald. Incidentally, as I understand the persecution would stop. Amhara sorry, and the quest to free Margaret the soldiers would be drunk and we would have done on the quiet?