Why you put apostrophe in "interpreted" word? Am I not allowed to state my critical opinion about a fictional character?
First of all, generalizing all characters as either cruel or psychically unstable is... well, extremely stupid to begin with. I suggest you to express your opinions differently and do a research. I understand you have not read the books, so you have no idea what canon characters are, the same with grasping their game's versions. By the way, the majority of Lodge wasn't even shown in the games, so how can you be sure that all of them are like you described them to be? Is really Foltest a monstrous king, Philippa's affected by paranoia (sic!), or Iorveth concerned only with himself (SIC!)? Come up with something better and more reasonable, please.
I won't even comment on the whole "gut instinct" theory or bs that Ves lied.
I haven't read any Witcher books but I think I have seen enough information from both the two witcher games to stick to my opinion. And this is a forum we argue about things presented in the game, not books (which is the inspiration of but not the projection to the game) . Let me take you point by point then:
-First, the majority of the Lodge did appear in the Witcher 2. Apart from Triss who seems to be decent enough to be ostracized from the group, there were five sorceresses who showed up during “The Eternal Battle” (I recognize Phillipa and Sile besides Sabrina Glevissig) and Assire var Anahid of Nilfgaard . The five sorceresses (as portrayed in “the Eternal Battle'' quest) participated in one of the more shocking massacre in the Northern kingdoms' history, throwing hellfire (supposedly forbidden magic) at the back of battling Kaedweni and Aedirnian forces, destroying both armies. They feared Henselt's power (paranoia), believed their own power must never be challenged (selfishness and authoritarian) and thus they committed wholesale slaughter (cruelty must be pretty light word here). And to the end of the game, the paranoid and cruel nature of the Lodge under the leadership of Philippa Eilhart is crystally clear: To found a new power (a Sorceresses' State) and kill everyone obstructing them (like when Sile ordering the 'kidnapped' dragon to destroy Loc Muinne and the delegations while she was about to teleport away).
-Secondly, I never said that Foltest is monstrous (though someone more conservative may say ploughing his sister is). I just said Foltest, Radovid and all other leaders
of the witcher's world possessing the same 'standard qualities': Authoritarian, paranoia, selfishness and cruelty. They appear only monstrous to our modern world but are perfectly acceptable, even required to survive and lead in such a shitty world. Yes, Foltest may be like a father to his soldiers and is a supreme leader of men (I deeply respect that) but if a subordinate tries to displease his will, it is fully expected that the subordinate will be quartered, his wife ravished, his castle razed to the ground and his subjects butchered to a man. Everyone simply has to do what he must (just like Iorveth having to abandon the female elves on the burning house or he would die all the time).
Let me clarify the whole thing again. I stand with my previous post stating that all the non-dragon leaders in the Witcher 2's game world are inflicted with same aforementioned traits. The words are unflattering
but contrary to what you think, they are not meant to condemn either
. The sorceresses, Radovid, Foltest, Roche, Iorveth...etc, they are all fair games of their own schemes and endeavors. For them, only the strong survive, the weak perish deservedly. And for us, deprived of a hand-holding moral compass, we love or hate them by our 'gut instinct' (and our own inexplicable agenda ;)).
On a completely unrelated note, even Geralt with his superior gut said that Ves lied! I suppose I can trust him on this one (and let's blame the lack of compass, eh!)