Castel Ravello (Quest Wine is sacred ) outcome (contains spoilers)

[JODEGAFUN]

I have played this quest myself twice, and sure you have no possiblity to change it outcome. Master Fabricio gets acused of high treason, and you get the next part of the quest.

I must admit that after watching this quest in a different language on youtube (english, not my origin)and reading all those comments from other persons i must wonder how much those people know about medival justice and rules.

1. Master Fabricio know that this wine is extrem expensive (they have a standing garrison+ the wine is transported under guard to the palace. And the guards lose their heads if something goes wrong and they lose the wine, just ask Fabricio how the wine is transportet, and he decribe it)

2. By selling this wine without permission from his leaque (Anna Henrietta) he steal it from her. Stealing from your leaque is high treason if it is a person who has the right of high court (has the right to sentence someone to death, which Anna holds).
Even for small theft death sentence where common (for example a peasant who stole some grain, the excuse my family hungers does not help him)

3. Lying direct to your leaque (with the right of high court) and knowing it that you are lying is high treason (which Fabricio does).

4. He used his position to cheat Anna (who set him in this position )by betraying her direct.
Aigan he commit high treason by cheating her personaly and abuse the trust she gave to him by setting him in this important position.

5. He makes clear that he would not stop it by preparing another barel to sell.

6. And the most underated point is that he put refuse in a barel which surely found sooner ore later his way into the palace. This wine is served to close friends and important envoys ore visitors. Imagine what could happen if someon like Emhyr ore an important embassador get this to drink. This would be at least a diplomatic insidence ore even worse (in Emhyrs case). You can consider this as treason too.

Even if it seems hard, the acursation of high treason is complete justified in a medival setting. Today he would get fired and accursed of frauding (cheating). This would give him maximum a few years in a severe case.
High treason in several cases has only one end unless Anna gives him a pardon (which would not happen as she lags compassion and it is no minor case)

[every1hasnames]

You will have to ask the people who commented under the video. We certainly cant assertain how much they know of medieval rules.


Also lets not make the mistake of taking real life medieval rules to seriously. Witcher 3 isnt based on real life. Even though some things my be designed from real life.


But ultimately i cant speak for whatever those people under the video you watched said.

[JODEGAFUN]

Opprinnelig skrevet av every1hasnames:

You will have to ask the people who commented under the video. We certainly cant assertain how much they know of medieval rules.


Also lets not make the mistake of taking real life medieval rules to seriously. Witcher 3 isnt based on real life. Even though some things my be designed from real life.


But ultimately i cant speak for whatever those people under the video you watched said.

They wrote a lot of trash, from how crazy is that for theft up to the reason why i was happy Anna got killed, it was best for all (if we assume Medival setting destroying the ruler dynasty is the worst which could happen, every noble with conections with the lost dynasty will want to claim his right, a successions war will start amongs the nobilty. This would done severe harm to the province).

I think if we consider most of the setting we should take a late medival (ca. 1400 AD ) time for it. Its fits the game itself, as typical medival leadership structurs are common, i see no republics around, only kingdoms.

[every1hasnames]

Opprinnelig skrevet av JODEGAFUN:

Opprinnelig skrevet av every1hasnames:

You will have to ask the people who commented under the video. We certainly cant assertain how much they know of medieval rules.


Also lets not make the mistake of taking real life medieval rules to seriously. Witcher 3 isnt based on real life. Even though some things my be designed from real life.


But ultimately i cant speak for whatever those people under the video you watched said.

They wrote a lot of trash, from how crazy is that for theft up to the reason why i was happy Anna got killed, it was best for all (if we assume Medival setting destroying the ruler dynasty is the worst which could happen, every noble with conections with the lost dynasty will want to claim his right, a successions war will start amongs the nobilty. This would done severe harm to the province).

I think if we consider most of the setting we should take a late medival (ca. 1400 AD ) time for it. Its fits the game itself, as typical medival leadership structurs are common, i see no republics around, only kingdoms.

Again this is really ultimately a mistake. Unless the game was designed actually off of real life. For example KIngdom come deliverance. Game was literally made from real life events, people, culture etc. Other then those examples You should only make decisions based on the rules of the game itself. Based on what is stated in the game itself.



As far as what they said again i cant say anything on the matter. Nobody here can either truthfully.


YOu gave your interpretation of what happened. Can you see the fail in logic if I just automatically just believe you? With no information from the people you are talking about.

I mean. Their arguments may or may not be valid but misunderstood or something Or you could be telling truth..


YOur interpretation of what they said can be wrong. I have no idea. As i didnt experience the argument. Also it doesnt look good that you come to steams forum about an argument you had on a youtube comment section.



YOu have your opinion. If others dont agree let it be so. If they do so with lack of knowledge and disrespectfully then thats just information for you that its best to just not converse with them anymore.


But i will say what you have said about the quest about the game is perfectly reasonable and logical. But without the other side of the matter.


What can we say?


I cant say your right in the argument. IM missing their side.

[JODEGAFUN]

Opprinnelig skrevet av every1hasnames:

Opprinnelig skrevet av JODEGAFUN:

They wrote a lot of trash, from how crazy is that for theft up to the reason why i was happy Anna got killed, it was best for all (if we assume Medival setting destroying the ruler dynasty is the worst which could happen, every noble with conections with the lost dynasty will want to claim his right, a successions war will start amongs the nobilty. This would done severe harm to the province).

I think if we consider most of the setting we should take a late medival (ca. 1400 AD ) time for it. Its fits the game itself, as typical medival leadership structurs are common, i see no republics around, only kingdoms.

Again this is really ultimately a mistake. Unless the game was designed actually off of real life. For example KIngdom come deliverance. Game was literally made from real life events, people, culture etc. Other then those examples You should only make decisions based on the rules of the game itself. Based on what is stated in the game itself.



As far as what they said again i cant say anything on the matter. Nobody here can either truthfully.


YOu gave your interpretation of what happened. Can you see the fail in logic if I just automatically just believe you? With no information from the people you are talking about.

I mean. Their arguments may or may not be valid but misunderstood or something Or you could be telling truth..


YOur interpretation of what they said can be wrong. I have no idea. As i didnt experience the argument. Also it doesnt look good that you come to steams forum about an argument you had on a youtube comment section.



YOu have your opinion. If others dont agree let it be so. If they do so with lack of knowledge and disrespectfully then thats just information for you that its best to just not converse with them anymore.


But i will say what you have said about the quest about the game is perfectly reasonable and logical. But without the other side of the matter.


What can we say?


I cant say your right in the argument. IM missing their side.

It is ok, would be really a waste of time write all the different arguments i read here.

I got only angry if people does not understand one of the best writen, and remarkable NPC i found in my gaming history (Alone the effords they put in her personality, for example the handwrestling if something goes not like she want, and her dressing inclusive her underware pants where amazing).

If you go throw any of her actions, you can understand everything Anna does, even her great mistake to underestimate the threat of an vampire army attacking her city (which even Geralt does not know and expect, as he ask Regis about it after the attack why lesser vampires follow Dettlaff).

In my gaming history i found only few charcters as remarkable as Anna Henrietta (for example the legendary Minsc in Baldurs Gate 2).

She is far from any simple generic noble.

And if you consider every of her action, read the character entry (which i have the feeling not much people do), and asume that humans have emotion (her traumatized lost of her sister as child explain her deep love for Syanna) and make mistakes she is an exeptional good leader (considering the character entry one of the best you can have, because you get not love by a complete contry within few years, as she is quite young, if you are a bad ruler).

But even best ruler can made horrible mistakes, just look on Alexander the Great ore Frederik the Great.
Alexander killed one of his most trusted friend with a spear as he got angry and mourns it deeply after, Frederik the Great lead his contry in a war which he survive only with great luck because he careless provoke France and Russia to join in an alliance with Austria aiganst him. Two good examples how emotions can take controll and make someone blind who is otherwise extrem intelligent