Ishxan said: Basically what I'm saying is that you cannot judge the moral complexity of a choice based on your perspective on how difficult it is. Click to expand...

It's not just my perspective I'm going off of, Crach an Craite even made the same point. He basically said Hjalmar would be better suited as a warchief rather than a king. He did mention his courage and strength but said those qualities are not enough. He then spoke very highly of Cerys and his only real concern was whether the Jarls would listen to a woman. But he said she would be a great leader.Honestly all we need to do is look at the way they handled the attack on the feast. Cerys held her sword in order to find the real culprit and have them admit their crimes THEN punish them. Having proof of their crimes and being rightfully punished is structured. She wasn't just after revenge, she was after justice. She was able to keep her cool and get the best results.Hjalmar ran out the doors closed his eyes and started swinging at everyone, hoping one of the people he killed was real culprit. I know that they both get the end result, so there's no bickering over that. We're scoring them based off what a King/Queen would do. Hjamlar seems like the best choice now considering the war, but Cerys is capable of winning wars as well, but she comes with the added bonus of being able to keep the peace. Say, after the war Hjamlar wanted his thirst of blood so he starts civil wars just to have his names in some songs. Clearly that's his mind, as we saw with the Giant. Cerys would do better in the long run.________________________________Bah I'm getting off topic. Regardless of what you think the best choice is, you have to admit that their story and character development are bland and completely panned out for us. They are complete polar opposites which is the point I'm trying to make. They're clear cut choices, which is something we don't really see in Witcher.Roche and Iorveth seemed to be polar opposites but their character development actually shows us something really interesting. After seeing both choices I released that Roche and Iorveth are the same, they care for their people.... or elf people. They care so much for their people they don't bother with what people think of them. Roche frees Geralt knowing it will make him look bad. Iorveth befriends Geralt knowing this as well. But they're both willing to do so because Geralt fights for a more noble cause, rather than making things better for one side he tries to even things out. Unite is probably a word they'll never see, but Geralt is trying and both Roche and Iorveth respect that. That level of character depth is a staple of The Witcher series.