.
.
.
You do know that if you save the Dragon with the dagger in Iorvaths path you break the control right? Also even if you did Roches path, A, the dragon may still be alive, but it's not going anywhere for some time, B, even if it could immediately return to the city, which it can't It would not be killing many people. Geralt goes right back, the dragon is not there yet, and most of the delegations have already left because war has started with Nilfgaar. When geralt returns the city is mostly a ghost town, other than a few stragglers, so your point is moot.

EDIT: Snarfinator beat me to the explanation, hehe xD

We was talking about the path where we can't cure the dragon so first, try not to confuse it any further by adding the cure in.

Anyway, as i said,
my point was to spare the dragon even if it destroys the city later
rather than
Killing it to prevent it from destroying the city

How and why
my opinion becoming unleashing the dragon against city was right and ,
or
me wanting to spare the dragon so that it decisively destroy the city,

is beyond me

The only group i said i want to kill is the whole order of knights that raped two sorceresses...

.
.
.

Do you even read? I gave reasons for both paths. I'm done here as it is clear you are either trolling, or dense.

I always thought killing the dragon on Roche's path was either a 1: preventative measure for future havoc the dragon can cause under Philippa's control or 2: a mercy killing

I mean, once that dragon was impaled on the tree, it was defeated. Worst it could do at that point would be to come back in a few days and burn down the now empty Loc Muinne to the ground for no apparent reason.

I saved Sile and before that Phillippa. I assume Geralt would consider it a terrible waste to let fine pieces of ass like these sorceresses just die.

And this is why i can't read behind people's brutal intentionbehind gentle words

"We was talking about the path where we can't cure the dragon so first, try not to confuse it any further by adding the cure in. " - I only said this cuz i criticizes putting in the cure when we was talknig about the path without cure is confusing the whole discussion and is unecessary

And i really do not understand why you said your reason in the without cure part.

It is irrevelant to my discussion whether sparing the dragon without curing it is right. which i responded it is right because even if it destroys the city, the city then was already a loose hell of a city, anyway.
Furthermore, yo udidnt answer to my reply
I gave you proof that the dragon shall burns down the city, did i not?
I did not state opinion as fact, i merely said what i heard from Sile, which is fact was my asnwer

And you seem not to understand that an order doesn't disappear jsut because it wasnt fulfilled. An order only disappeared when it is withdrew or fulfilled. "The dragon will burn down the city "that is the sole fact that i stated as fact which you doubted in your reply. " Why would the dragon destroy the city"

Ever heard of extenuating circumstances?

When Sile said the dragon was going to burn the town to the ground, she was sure Geralt was about to be munched up by said dragon, after which it would've been completely free to kill everyone in Loc Muinne.

But you keep forgetting that Geralt soundly thrashed the dragon and got it impaled on a tree. Hard to burn down a city when you've got a broken conifer rammed through your chest. When Geralt beat the dragon, it couldn't carry out Sile's order. Doesn't matter whether the order still stood or not.

And, as I and others have said time and time again, if the dragon did end up following that order later after it recovered, it would have had absolutely no consequence. Hard for burning down a ruined city to matter much when the whole reason for burning it (to kill everyone) has become moot (you know, since everyone left the city).

In summary, it is very logical to conclude that after the end of TW2, the dragon does not come back to burn down the city. By that time, Philippa would've learned of Geralt's victory over the dragon and ordered it to not waste its time.

Agreed with you all there. It had neither the strength nor the command to follow through with what it had to do. I decided to spare it because I did so with Vincent in the first game, and I wouldn't expect it to do a ton of damage given its position. The most it would do is fly through the empty city and pick off the one or two stragglers.

That's something you gotta love about CDPR. They actually let players decide to kill the dragon or not. They could have just chose the easy way and make a cutscene with Geralt simply walking away in order to preserve the canon but they wanted to let players in control so anyone could be satisfied despite the position of the "canon" Geralt about killing dragons.

What I mean there is that there's no "wrong" or "right"choice. There's only a choice that corresponds to who you want your own Geralt to be. And that's clearly the way to go for this kind of game. It's a basic rule that some developers forget sometimes. Good to see that CDPR sticks to it.

I am going to have to agree with some others, this was largely incoherent, it's tough to make sense of. But I'll try.

When Triss referred to "the knights" she wasn't talking about ALL the knights there, there were hundreds of knights from several different orders, one for each kingdom in attendance. It doesn't take a hundreds of knights to rape two women. Most of them don't even KNOW eachother. Though it was clear more than a couple knights were on a rampage, it wasn't all of them. They do notshare a single mind, they are a group of individuals who happen to all share the label of "knight". It's like, if you saw someone in a city raping a woman, or whatever, and you said "I saw some men do it" you would not be referring to ALL men in the city, right? And as for allowing it to happen, they are not superheroes, they are just men with swords. They are not all knowing, they don't have super senses, they can't be everywhere. If it happened around the corner from them, and they simply had no clue it was going on, or got there too late, why should they be blamed? I repeat, it's not justice to kill them all, it's murder.

You are splitting hairs on your reasons. You think it's justice to let everyone in the city die, yes or no?

I am not forgetting anything. In my playthrough that I will be importing into 3, I will be breaking the spell on the dragon. She lives, but no curse means she will have no desire to attack, even if she was able. I haven't gotten to that point yet with my Roche run, but will likely let her live, because as explained before, she is a victim, and should not be killed for it especially if it's possible she might be saved later, and as some others have explained, the dragon could not actually come back and kill everyone, which is true. But since at least part of your reason for letting the dragon live was to dish out "justice" against people who may or may not be guilty, I'm just saying, that line of thinking is, imo, morally wrong because innocent people will be killed, assuming it was possible.

Just played through Roche's path, after I did Iorveth, whew. I killed Letho both times because he's practically spit on what it used to mean to be a witcher. Sure, he claims "I'm not witcher anymore", and goes on assassinating people like Assassin creed style. So I would call what he says "hypocritical", how can he want to save the viper school if he is "no longer" a witcher lol. Plus, who's to say the Emperor would keep his word.

On top of it all, this man walks into your side of the world, and makes everyone go to war with each other. Practically every area he leaves lights up on fire with civil war. To me LETHO is a monster lol, one that you saved from Slitherd. So in fact I feel your fully responsible for this man living and doing what he does to this day. Ya know the domino efffect that = saving letho from the slither lol.

Now, I don't know about you guys, but when I did Roche's path and went to visit Sile in Filippa's house, I half expected Filippa to be spanking Sile LOL. But seriously, first play through I was pissed at Filippa because she used the ritual to control Saskia. Though, what the king did to Filippa, made what filippa did to Saskia seem not so bad. In fact, that scene was pretty dam gruesome, and actually made me feel bad for Filippa. She might be a stuck up bitch, but she did help raise the king of Rediana.

You guys also forget that by controlling Saskia, she now divulged all her secrets and weaknesses. For all we know, the reason Filippa did all she did was because she knew about the Emperors army marching, and she had to do something drastic to prevent him taking over all the lands. As for Sile, she seems inferior to Filippa, and more like an apprentice in comparsion. She played her part, but only the part seemingly given to her by the Lodge and by Filippa.

What I don't get is why you guys compare what Letho says about Yennefer to what Sile says. How does either character know they were going to reveal the information about Yennefers location. If Letho wasn't there, and you let Sile die, you would have never gotten any info about Yennefers death. She gave Geralt the most valuable piece of information she could have given him. Which also makes me believe Yennefer was part of the Lodge as well. After all she is in the Emperors control with amnesia.

I saw a screen shot of the very end with all the npcs: Roche, Iorveth, Triss, and Geralt, I wonder if that kind of ending is possible lol. That would take probably the perfect set of choices. But I will agree with one thing you guys have said, I for sure changed my path the TW2. In the TW1 i went the route of the order LOL, then regretted after seeing the last couple chapters. So this time I started off with the Scoia'tael, and tried to make amends for how badly they got raped in the first game. Is it just me, or does anyone else find Iorveths dream from the Harpy cave halarious? I interpreted his dream as his what he wished his future to be, and that's quite an interesting future for a mass murder :p.

I liked his dream. It showed that he was fighting towards an actual goal, not just to kill, or out of revenge. All he wants is a home for himself and other elves besides the slums (and Dol Blatnanna, which he made quite clear he doesn't like). I just wish the elvish in the dream was translated in the captions. I even went as far as going to a witcherverse elvish dictionary site, but only a couple of the words in the dream were listed, so I'm still in the dark.

ps. if Philippa knew the Nilfgaardians were going to attack, TELLING the kings of the impending invasion makes a lot more sense than enthralling a dragon.

On Iorveth's path, do you not get the cure for the Dragon if you choose to save Triss over helping Phillipa? I ended up with Philipa's? dagger after the fact(and killed Letho with it just for the hell of it).

I just started a new game to pick Roche's path, but I know I'm never going to like/respect him as much as Iorveth, for the resons stated in the above posts.

I ran the ending both ways, and I never even thought to check, to be honest. I know it was never an option to lift the curse. Dragon down, went straight to Letho never looked in my inventory. I know i never made inside Philippa's house, so... I assume getting it is a bug cus it ought to still be locked up in that chest which you can only access if you free Philippa rather than rescue Triss.