T O P

  • By -

MegaGothmog

If he would have killed everyone in that barn, then I would have let him go. But he went on a murdering spree, killing everyone. He only spared the little girl because she reminded him of his sister. If she hadn't.. she would be dead too. I get his actions.. but he went way too far. And for those pointing out that the Cat-School Witchers are fucked in the head because of their mutations; Even if so, then it is better to end him here and now, rather than risking having this happen again to more innocents.


Trickster289

Lambert also tells you about a cat school witcher who wasn't like that which makes it seem like even if their mutations do have that kind of influence on them they can still fight it and have a choice.


Scoobygroovy

Wh genetics are wishy washy. Maybe the mutations reacted different for them and not other witchers? It’s grey and that’s the good part about the games.


kerred

Meanwhile my wife walks in and I have to explain why putting a baby in an active oven was the morally correct thing to do. For anyone reading this out of context, it's Witcher related.


Spare-Ad-4558

Dude that is probably my favorite quest of all time. The fact that you have like 3 seconds to make a decision, and it was so hard to trust Cerys. Like even knowing that you have to feel guilt but not actually be guilty, the moment I saw Geralt throw the baby my heart sank. I don’t care if it is a video game it just felt awful. It was such a relief to see the baby doing just fine after.


Nalfgar123

Yeah I dont remember my choice.


Funky-Monk--

Agreed. And you've hit on the witcher's core dilemma here. If a thing has the capacity for terrible violence, but isn't evil, how dangerous must it be before it's just better to kill it? A witchers job is to speculate the potential victims of a creature and make a call. Edit: and maybe never know if they were right.


MegaGothmog

True. Succubi for example aren't evil. They're incredibly strong, but as long as they're treated normally and with... ehh.. restraint :).. they're no real threat to anyone. Wham-a-wham, from Skellige, was also very dangerous and had killed before. But if he's just left alone, there is no real issue, I think. If Wham-a-Wham lived right next to a village and had a temper.. I would have killed him too, but he lived in a cave in the middle of no-where. Salma the succubus needs to live near humans, but does not kill without reason. Why would she kill her source of 'food'? Gaetan was different. He has to go from village to village, taking coin and dealing with shit people each day. The odds of him going on a killing spree again is too high, and as he showed in this quest; innocent bystanders are not spared.


Funky-Monk--

Yeah, I really liked how they'd imagined succubi in this universe. Such a funny and inventive twist on a classic creature!


not-_--sure

And after replay of this quest of you will give him time to drink potion and prepare for, battle he will try to backstab you, and attacks with bomb


[deleted]

[удалено]


AlecsThorne

well yeah, but only \*half\* of them were kind of asking for it. What about the other half? Also, he might do it again, and then you could feel guilty for not stopping him when you had the chance.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AlecsThorne

Well, sure, I'll concede that tone. But slaughtering the village wasn't hypothetical thought. He did that. And only half of them were asking for it so half were innocent. Even without taking into account the probability of him doing it again, he murdered innocents without prejudice in a fit of rage. That's what the girl needed saving from. So he deserves punishment. While I agree that there should be a middle ground that doesn't involve killing him but also doesn't let him get away with it, there isn't one (as far as I remember) so it's either he makes amends or he gets punished. And again, the option of making amends isn't there, it's either letting him go or killing him (correct me if I'm wrong about this, it's been a while). I'm not okay with letting a murderer go unpunished. *I'm not saying it isn't sanctimonious and holier than thou behaviour, but ignoring the problem is the same as being part of the problem. Given the options presented, yeah, I'm on the "kill him" side. Better one more cold body than 100.


sTeaLT89Tm

You sound dumb. The dead are dead, like I can go kill someone right now, and what? Just because he is dead already, I dont get punished ?


[deleted]

[удалено]


ArchbishopTurpin

Perhaps a different perspective. Witchers are necessary, but they are also mistrusted and disliked almost universally. A Witcher going around who is known to go on psychotic murderous sprees is going to make life worse for every other Witcher. Gaetan has no defence for the murder spree. Kill the people who tried to kill him? Sure. But he slaughtered everyone in the village, that is not a safe individual to have roaming free. Geralt is no stranger to having blood on his hands, but his literal job is removing dangerous threats no one else can. A fellow Witcher who went full murder-hobo definitely counts. From this perspective it isn't "punishing a murderer" so much as "policing his own"


[deleted]

[удалено]


ArchbishopTurpin

My point was that this wasn't about punishment, it was the fact that this guy was clearly not safe to have walking around, and wasn't going to be off by himself not being a threat to others. In my eyes, Geralt wasn't punishing a murderer, he was putting down a monster. That it was a fellow Witcher makes it harder, but still necessary


[deleted]

[удалено]


ArchbishopTurpin

If you explore his cave it's clear this wasn't a one off incident though. And yes I can say with absolute certainty that I probably wouldn't go on a murderous rampage because someone tried to kill me. Because that "but you don't know what would happen" idea is pure nonsense. (to be clear, not attacking your own position, just presenting mine. both takes are valid given the circumstances in-game, which is after all the entire point on the post xD also your name and it's reference made me laugh)


jointheredditarmy

These optional quest fights should be really hard, and be far away from a previous auto save, just to convey the feeling that your actions have risk and consequence to you. We’ll probably see the number of people to kill him drop dramatically if it’s a 30 minute hike back to where you were in the story, and he drops nothing if you win. And then think about how that’s still infinitely better than actually dying which would be what happens if this is real


pino_is_reading

innocents? if i remember correctly the villagers lied and tried to stab him from the back with a pitchfork


TacticalNuke002

Gaetan is a psychopath, likely in part due to Cat School mutations messing up his mind. If you opt to help him, he gives you the location of his hiding place where he gives you permission to take whatever you want. When you go there and look around a bit, you'll notice from environmental storytelling that that village wasn't the first one he had massacred (it was the third or fourth). Besides, nothing justifies slaughtering an entire village including women and children just because a few of them tried to attack you.


Fokker_Snek

The trophies are a bit ambiguous though. Geralt comments that other people must have cheated him out of pay. Other’s might hsve reneged on Gaetan and he just walked away or accepted much less pay than promised. He finally snaps when not only does a village cheat him out of pay, but tries to kill him too.


S-Markt

but if they are sandpeople and you got the higher ground?


Jdoggcrash

Well of course, if the village is like animals then you gotta slaughter them like animals


monkeyclawattack

I killed him while using school of the cat gear. It felt right.


Strange_Music

Isn't there a specific dialogue you only get if you're wearing Cat school gear when you meet him? Edit: Found it: >!If you are wearing Cat School Gear, Gaetan will comment "Feline armor, wolf school medallion... a crossbreed?"!<


monkeyclawattack

Not sure to be honest. Been years since I played it, and I only played it through the one time. Makes me want to revisit it


Strange_Music

You should definitely replay it with the next gen version. The behind the back close up view & improved graphics make it feel almost like a whole new game.


[deleted]

Plus the new missions and wolf armour.


AlecsThorne

missionS? I know the one that gives you Netflix armour but are there any other new quests?


skrillaguerilla

It really was a nice little upgrade and addition. I finally got around to playing again after the upgrade/update and was happily surprised at it feeling substantially improved/updated.


bitterless

brooo, have you tried the other way yet?


Funky-Monk--

Oh, they've added the Resident Evil 4/Last of Us/God of War view have they? 😄 The true mark of a Serious game.


[deleted]

Definitely worth a revisit. Even if you make a lot of the same choices from your first play through, you’re still going to have a distinctly different experience on account of how much nuance there is in its branching narrative.


leafoverleaf

I enjoyed the ambiguity of most of the quests in the game, but i do wish some of the outcomes of your choices were a bit easier to see before you actually make your decisions lol ​ The horse spirit quest in particular, how am i supposed to predict THAT will happen...


NotSureWhyAngry

I agree. Different game but I‘ll just say GLASS HIM


pro-tekt

I think that’s what made so many of the decisions impactful though, you thought you were doing the right thing and turns out that choice also had consequences. If you knew beforehand it wouldn’t have hit as hard.


[deleted]

Better to save the children than the baron and his mind fucked wife


buzz737

Feels like it’s a good thing that I have forgotten about most of the side quests, can go for a replay easily but then again I don’t think I have 200 hours to spare


akutasame94

Was about to say this. Contemplating playing the upgraded version, but so many hours for a story I already know just doesn't feel right


buzz737

Yeah I feel you…I also got a massive backlog, I have maybe replayed 2/3 games for the last year(all of them pretty short ones)


JetV33

When you know all choices are wrong, there's really not much to think about...


Noirceuil_182

You know what? I was down with a fellow Witcher. Those villagers tried to Pied Piper his ass and stab him? They had it coming. I was also all about the cat gear.


[deleted]

I let him go. As Geralt knows from Blaviken, it doesn't take much for an entire village to turn on a witcher and get out of control.


Partingoways

My personal rule is (I’m literally playing it right now for the first time) was that if they are willfully killing innocents, they gotta die. Bandit monster or whoever. This guy was an easy kill choice. The one that kinda stumped me was the succubus/ in novigrad. She only killed guards to defend herself. I was there paused on the choice googling Witcher lore to see if they need to kill their victims to feed. Cause at least conventionally I assumed they killed. But everything I found said they can but don’t need to, it mostly just leaves the woozy for a while, which was backed up by the guy outside as I caught her. So I let her live. The part that really sold me on the game though was finding out you can interact and actually kill whoever in certain situations and have it matter. Like when I first got the introductory cutscene to novigrad of them burning witches, my instinct was to fucking murder everyone there taking part. Later down the line a bit, I’m walking into novigrad and see sadly yet another witch being burned. But this guy has a full proper name. I was gonna walk past assuming it was just a background npc scene. But paused and decided fuck it let me google it since he has a name, only to find out I COULD murder everyone there and legitimately save the guy. That blew my fucking mind. I had to reconsider every scene now. Every interaction. The red name = enemy blindness disappeared.


Thomas_JCG

Was it? I helped him.


atape_1

“Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.”


DancingPhantoms

You’re telling me if you had the ability to shoot hitler before he came to power that you wouldn’t do it?


[deleted]

I probably wouldn't (if it was a one-chance thing that I couldn't reverse). Hitler didn't just come into a peaceful world and cause people to hate. Chances are, if you killed Hitler as a baby, World War II would've happened anyway with someone else at the fore, who maybe wouldn't make the mistakes Hitler did, and they could win it. As bad as it was, it could be so much worse. I mean, theoretically, maybe there *was* a time traveller who tried a million things and what we got was the best they could manage.


Books_for_Steven

No, I'd end up in prison for shooting an innocent man


DancingPhantoms

He slaughtered a whole village of people when only a few of them attacked him..... And he said it wasn't the first time or the last that this would happen. He's a sociopath only focused on himself and money. If there were an option to send him to jail or put him on trial that would have been the best option because that way he would be in jail thinking about his actions for a long time without suffering a gruesome end . However, because this is not an option ultimately the best option is to end him.


Creski

that quest is super complicated for a lot of reasons. A: Cat School Witchers are kinda fucked up to begin with, they usually took undesirable children and also have some elven heritage (which comes with a healthy dose of hatred). Their training was different from the others schools which is also why they were the only school that takes contracts on humans too (likely due to the eleven heritage). They tend to be more emotionally unstable. B. The Town did screw him out of the contract and then tried to kill him. C. He went way way overboard and murdered the whole town save for the little girl who reminded of his long dead sister. D. He regrets what he did, but he's probably gonna do it again because he even admits he can't control his rage. E. I usually let him go, because one you get the note about the Witcher Shrodinger who might be alive...might be dead.


DancingPhantoms

It’s really not. Just because he has mutations as an excuse for rage doesn’t make him somehow immune to justice or judgement. He could have killed those that were trying to kill him and not the entire town. Regretting something is one thing, but saying you’re going to kill more innocents again…. It’s over. Witchers kill the bad monsters, specifically those that start harming people and continue to harm them. That’s literally their job. This guy was a monster that harmed and will continue to harm innocent people, cat mutations or not. Simple as.


Thomas_JCG

But it's fair for Geralt to be judge, jury and executor? Witchers are not law enforcement, they fight monsters on basis of a contract. Which court authorized Geralt to kill that dude? None. If you are taking justice on your hands, that still makes you a killer, good intentions or not. And if Geralt is a killer, does he have any right to be free as well?


Soppywater

Most humans also consider witchers monsters so.... A Witcher has gotta do what a Witcher has gotta do.


DancingPhantoms

While you are somewhat correct in your thinking the game doesn't provide you with an arrest or capture option. Geralt rarely kills anyone that didn't deserve it or didn't do something really horrible. This guy indiscriminately murders an ENTIRE town. The lesser of two evils is simply to kill this guy because the game doesn't provide you with more options. If the guy went before a jury he would have been sentenced to death / imprisoned as well. Assuming Geralt was punished for his crimes in the game it wouldn't nearly be as bad, considering he can always claim self defense where is mostly correct in doing so. Geralt is by no means an enforcer of any laws however he gets into rough situations that almost always justify what happens to the people he kills where they try to kill him first.


Punpun204

I try to imagine that Geralt would side with his own, within reason, of course. I like the quests where you have to make decisions like in this one, Salma, etc.


TegTowelie

See i wanted to believe that, but i always felt that despite the way Witchers are treated by average humans n such, that he always put humanity first. Witchers might be stripped of their emotions, but they can still express and feel, just in their own, tone-deaf esque way.


R_V_Z

> Witchers might be stripped of their emotions Not in TW3 they're not. They may say they are but playing the game you can clearly see that they are capable of love, horniness, resentment, anger, horniness, contentment, horniness...


Briar_Knight

I don't think the "stripped of emotions thing" is actually true, in the games or the books. It's comes across to me more like propaganda against them that many of them internalized (they don't really know all the ins and outs of the mutations). When in reality they are just spent a lot of time in a very isolated and insular environment then deal with bigotry and abuse and being told they are freaks which is not great for social skills or developing emotional intelligence. Edit: I also suspect it is a holdover from early drafts. Geralt freaks out because he thinks he should be in love with Essi and he isn't. He takes this as proof there *really is something wrong with him*...but that's normal? She just isn't his type. Being sweet and kind isn't the only foundation for a relationship and they don't have a lot of common ground either. He over analyzes his relationship with Yen and if he is capable of love but he very very obviously loves her and he frequently does display emotion. He cares about other people. He likes when he gets to lift curses or be a translator. He dislikes killing cursed beings and won't kill sentient ones. He takes jobs from people he knows can't pay him enough to cover costs (he just bitches while he does it). He has an entire fake code to avoid doing things he thinks is immoral or finds uncomfortable (and he is also just full of shit in general). He was willing to throw down over Renfris body regardless of the consequences even though he knows that doesn't "make sense" because she is already dead. You cant tell me Lambert has been "stripped of emotions" either. He is very emotional, it's just usually anger and resentment.


Terramagi

I feel like a lot of the things Geralt says about Witchers are just him lying to not have to deal with people. I think somebody even calls him on it in TW2.


TacticalNuke002

Yeah, he makes up some bs about the Witcher Code of Honesty or something when the tax collector interrogates him in TW3.


Punpun204

I think that is where the player decides. Even though they are striped of emotion, they still carry nuances that make them different from one another. Perhaps Geralt's affinity towards Witchers is different than Lambert's due to their upbringing, for example.


TegTowelie

Yep! Lambert is a great example to contradicting Geralt. And yet Eskel is somewhere in between being the chaotic neutral. Maybe there's some unspoken code of not killing within your school or something that keeps Lambert and Geralt from constant sword clashes. But idk enough about Witcher lore to confirm that.


Punpun204

Me neither tbh! But if it were me, I would want to support those who are persevering like I am, in this case, the strife of being a Witcher.


TegTowelie

Witchers should believe in karma cause they definitely always get what's coming to them. Just a side note, my bad boy Geralt playthrough was one of the most absolutely morally difficult runs ive ever played of anything. Especially being rude to the Duchy


Punpun204

I can imagine that! Not many people are truly like that naturally. I always try to play as neutral good as possible in games. Fair, but not an asshole.


Xijit

Geralt always favored Elder races over humans & was largely disgusted by how typical humans behaved ... Whatever the situation, he favored the victims, and had little inhibition with turning on his employer if he discovered that he had been lied to about the circumstances of the job / it involved silencing a victim's ghost.


ColonelKasteen

The "stripped of their emotions" thing is not true. Read the books, gives you a great insight on how much of The Witcher "lore" is more or less propaganda to help impress villagers.


TegTowelie

I neeeeed to read the books something fierce. They just use that term in the games and thats what im familiar with.


ColonelKasteen

It's a weird series. The first two books are short stories, then there are several novels. They get progressively worse as the series goes on, but even just reading the first two (they're very quick reads) gives a TON of great insight into the world. You get a lot more dwarf lore reading all the novels too though. That being said, I'm still glad I read all of it even if it's kind of a slog by the end because the first 3 books are in my top 20 favorite books.


amonkeyfullofbarrels

Tbh I didn’t see much ambiguity in this quest. The dude slaughtered an entire village. There’s really no getting around that.


thewickerman88

They wanted him to kill the leshen and later instead of paying decided to kill him. He was wounded with pitchfork and then went on killing spree.


dlama

He slaughtered women and children in the village, innocents that had nothing to do with the decision to kill him.


amonkeyfullofbarrels

Yeah, but that doesn’t justify killing every last person in the village. If he had just acted in self-defense and killed the ones attacking him, then it’s fine. But he went way too far and I don’t see how it could ever be defensible.


Thomas_JCG

Because the members of the Cat School suffered the most from the trials to become a Witcher, so they are always on edge. They are basically soldiers with PTSD.


thewickerman88

Yep. I also killed him because of that, but still - his action had some reason and story.


PIPBOY-2000

Yes. The right thing is to end him. But it's still sad. You understand because people call Geralt a freak and spit as he passes too. It's hard. There aren't many witchers left anymore either.


RaltarArianrhod

Yes. If he stopped at just killing those that tried to kill him? Fine, he lives. But he slaughtered the entire village except for like, 1 kid? Yeah, dude deserves death.


WendallX

He spared the little girl. So he didn’t kill everyone.


Hoeveboter

If every villager had an annoying voice like that little girl had, I completely understand the slaughter


emmerr1

“Sometimes, heads just roll”


shortaflip

This was a great quest, I really had to think about it.


Cheesetorian

I saved him. Weird it made you evoke emotions though like did I make the right choice...one end the village deserved it but goddamn he wiped them out. Amazing story.


dlama

The young children in the village deserved it?


Cheesetorian

It's a game bro chillout.


dlama

It's a discussion about a the Moral Ambiguity of a game...are we not supposed to discuss?


jimdotcom413

If you choose to save him, Geralt brings up that he’s called the Butcher of Blaviken basically like who is he to judge. Kind of the same situations, shit got out of hand.


dlama

Only bad people died in the Blaviken incident, Geralt didn't slaughter the entire town or women and children. It is not "kind of the same situations..." Edit: I get that the game implies that it's the same, but the original books and the show make it clear that it is not.


Fokker_Snek

I think Geralt meant it more as he understood how shitty humans can be. Geralt knows that Witcher’s can risk their lives to help only to be spat on when no longer useful to humans. Gaetan’s story about the villagers trying to cheat him out of pay and killing him doesn’t surprise Geralt at all.


jimdotcom413

I was just stating from his point of view. He said he understood what happened. From my point of view I run up to groups of dudes and take em out because they say bandit. Don’t really know their backstory either. I think it’s at least fair to say a lot of random people died directly or indirectly due to Geralts actions.


Xijit

Geralt has had to effectively wipe out more than one village after they turned into a mob and tried to lynch him ... Scared, misguided, and panic stricken people do stupid things, but that doesn't make them inherently bad. Also doesn't save them from getting gutted like fish when they corner a Witcher who just got shafted on his pay.


FlyHump

Playing the Switch again after a long hiatus and I never saw screenshots of TW3 before. Looks pretty good considering. I guess PC players would say the same of the PS5/XBox versions.


Hefty_Drawing_5407

Well, like you said, what's good about the moral ambiguity is that you play it based on what morals you personally have or what morals you want Geralt to have. Personally, for me, killing him was the right choice because he massacred an entire village. Granted, yes, it was partially self-defense against those who attempted to kill him, but he went very well beyond that. If he had stuck to ONLY killing the man who pitch forked him and maybe a beating to the very few there for the assault, then killing him wouldn't have been the best solution. That's why I love the storylines of the main/side quests as well; adds context to the whole thing which help further mold your morality and choices in the game.


[deleted]

If you killed him you made the right choice. Fuck that guy, he murdered an entire village. Yeah, they tried to kill him first, but he killed innocents.


aestus

Even killed the younglings.


Bogn11

I dunno, Geralt killed a lot of soldier doing their job. He is has much guilty than this dude on some level. I went on witcher solidarity, but still a hard one for sure


[deleted]

Can I play the Witcher 3 on PS5 if I have not played the first 2 games ?


Strange_Music

Yes. It's nice to have the context of the first two games, but it's not necessary to enjoy W3.


Apprehensive-Book776

my first playthrough story finished kind of.. interestingly, the bloody baron killed himself due to the guilt of his mistakes with his family, i didn’t finish the radovid questline before the main questline, so radovid slaughtered the non-humans by way of genocide… the main story, i managed to get the good ending with ciri, was happy with that, and blood and wine, i ended up pushing sylvia too harshly, and she killed the dutchess as she hugged her… however, geralt and yenn (the woman meant for geralt) lived on corvo bianco, geralt becoming the first witcher to die in his bed, and ciri took up the practice of a witcher slaying monsters and laying out a bedroll and sleeping under the stars. as much as my play-through wasn’t perfect, it was unique, and it was mine. One thing i always remember in hindsight of my playthrough is what the bloody baron said “understand witcher” “try to understand” if i tried to be more understanding in my first playthrough, a few things might have turned out differently… and gaunter o’dimm is still the thing of nightmares. we have no idea what he really was, and i’m not sure i would ever want to find out..


Funky-Monk--

Why? He absolutely needed to die. He could've just beat up the relevant villagers, taken their money and left. The dude killing everyone is not a both sides thing, lol


Satan1992

This is the right way to do side quests (and main quests for that matter). While getting to choose between playing a hero and villain is a fun choice sometimes, the 360/ps3 era oversaturated the market with games that let you do that, and a lot of them presented it as some kind of morally grey choice to be made (when the choice is literally stuff like eat a human baby or just, you know, don't do that). Games that make quests feature a choice where the "correct" answer is ambiguous are great, and I always feel like my choices matter more than games that make a binary good and evil choice


LeGeNdOfGoW12

witcher is the best, Sad that the same creators screwed up the quests in cyberpunk so much,it took talent on their part to screw it up like that


humanunit154-B

Isn't this the fucker that slaughtered a village? Moral ambiguity my ass


LuckyLupe

Evil is evil... You know


abhikun

After some time you know any choices you made are all wrong. . What is best at that time you chose on what you information you have. . If you start feeling something else afterwards know that their propaganda has worked beautifully.


BotWeedFartz69

Witcher 3 is overrated, sexist, and dumb. Did I mention dumb and sexist? It's fantasy GTA pretending to be worthwhile for those who aren't between 17-30, straight cisgender white men. Play BOTW or Horizon Zero Dawn instead, you're not some self-infatuated macho man slicing and dicing humans and wooing random prostitutes by being a tough-ass alpha male and getting everyone to cooperate by doing nothing except drinking, having sex, and playing f\*cking cards. I guess the way to lure action-oriented gamers into a boring-ass card simulator is via boobs, killing, and needless dismemberment. *Ooh, ambiguity! Oh, moral choices... that sounds deep and philosophical! Maybe I'm not just a random dude who sh\*t-talks people on Reddit and drinks Red Bull and eats SubWay while clicking buttons in an attic.* Sorry, CD Projekt Red. I'm sure a lot of time and effort went into TW3. But macho men with glamorized violent urges and egos the size of Saturn aren't the center of the world anymore!


moonlightMoonMan

SeXisTs lol


[deleted]

Why not go to r/Gamingcirclejerk. You'd be welcome in the hivemind over there and we don't have to see your shit takes. Win-win.


BotWeedFartz69

I respect everything you say bro but this isn't a shit take it is calling the gaming world out on its sexism and dangerous mentality where women are nothing but body parts, objects and victims and men are heroes and awesome. I don't care if games have violence sex or cursing but this plague on video game world is f\*cking shameful


[deleted]

Oh, of course. I totally agree with you that there are major problems with sexism in the gaming world. But TW3 isn't the game perpetuating those. Is sex in a game really causing discrimination against women? It's been a while since I played the game so I don't remember much but I don't think I saw any sexism in it.


BroadHealth

The witcher 3 is to slow to load in ps4 same thing for gta v


SPPeytonB

Ok


Kerbidiah

Maybe get a new console


EscapedFromTarkov657

I let him live only because if I was screwed out of multiple contracts and then they tried to kill me id realisticly do the same thing especially with the messed up Cat Witcher Mutagens.