[Carolina]

First of all, hello everyone and thanks for making this forum such an entertaining read. Sorry if this has been asked before, but I couldn't find a satisfying answer after some lurking, and I don't want to risk spoiling myself what's left of the game in the process.

Now, on topic: I'm currently at the end of Act IV, and about to decide if I'm siding with the Order or going neutral. In fact, I already decided to not to meddle in political matters, but I wondered if that's going to cost me the lives of the peasants in return. The game presents me with the same cutscene no matter what I choose, and I'm only left with a slight variation in the dialog with White Rayla, which doesn't say much about the outcome anyway. I seriously hope that the game doesn't interpret my "I'm not going to take sides in this quarrel, because both of you are crazy bastards" as "I don't care about the lives of these innocent hostages". Because that would be a cheap way to make me feel wrong about being neutral. I realize that the general tone of the game is "shades of gray", but I'm trying to have a coherent character development, and while my Geralt is clearly not interested in politics, he isn't a sociopath that doesn't care for anyone besides himself.

That's why I can't see myself chosing the Scoia'tael side and wasting dozens of hours in a move that seems to be so out of character for Geralt. Those guys are truly evil scum, and the game does a good job to present them that way from the first chapters. Of course, the Order turned out to be the same kind of social cancer —I tried their path a little bit, out of curiosity—, but the game backstabs you with that knowledge only after you made the decision to fight for them. Before that, the only hints to their true abhorrent nature were only a few suspicious comments from unreliable sources and unimportant characters, like random Squirrels or some random citizens of Vizima.

Besides that, just take a look at the way the game portrays both sides. For example, the few times I crossed paths with the Order, I received this input:

• Sigfried, a very polite and honorable knight from the Order is fighting monsters alone in the sewers, and he offers me his assistance. He claims that the Order protects innocent people from monsters.
  
• Sigfried again, informing everyone that I'm a hero and vouching for me at the Dike gates.
  
• Sigfried asks me to lead his men in a raid against the Scoia'tael. Which is good in my book, since they are monsters.
  
• the Order is trying to neutralize the bank robbers and save the hostages. Basically, the game is asking me if I want to side with the guys who are threatening innocent lives or with the guys who are trying to save them. Some choice.
  
• Patrick de Weyze informs me that —unlike Yaevinn, who is happy to murder helpless humans whenever he can— Sigfried is clearly affected and disgusted to fight against these unprepared and badly equipped foes.
  
• again, the Order trying to save the peasants in Murky Waters, while the Scoia'tael already murdered several of them to make a point. Now the game seems to be asking me if I want to help the hostages or leave them to their luck... right after I've sworn to protect the helpless to the Lady of the Lake, and received Aerondight in return.

Compare that to what we see of the Scoia'tael and its members before choosing sides:

• Zoltan and the dwarven blacksmith from the Outskirts —interestingly, both are victims of racism— informing Geralt about the Squirrels and their activities, displaying a strong disapproval for their methods.
  
• Some Scoia'tael members threaten to kill me if I don't hand over the Haren Brogg's merchandise.
  
• Vivaldi, another victim of racism, dismissing Yaevinn and his band of rogues, refusing to help them "even if he could".
  
• I'm sent in a mission to supervise a weapons trade, and I'm forced to kill some Order knights. Afterwards, I learn that Yaevinn tricked me and there was no planned exchange with the hawkers.
  
• I'm sent in a mission to kill an alp who's impeding the retrieval of important ancient elven objects. Afterwards, I learn that Yaevinn tricked me to clear a path so he can rob a bank.
  
• Yaevinn and his men assault the aforementioned bank and take hostages. I can see the Scoia'tael fighters brutalizing the elderly workers, and when I tell Yaevinn that I'm not going to take sides, he decides that I'm his enemy, as everyone who disagrees with him.
  
• Scoia'tael members murdering innocent citizens from Vizima, and leaving women and children to be devoured alive by ghouls in order to escape.
  
• White Rayla informs me that the Squirrels fought for the Nilfgaardian Empire in the Battle of Brenna, killing most of their prisoners and submitting her to sadistic torture.
  
• Toruviel and her men take innocent hostages and kill many of them to make a point. The same people who offered them food when they were starving, to which them replied that they won't accept morsels from the lowly humans.

And I'm not mentioning the barbaric actions I'm seeing in Old Vizima, because at that point one is already committed to a side. Now that I think about it, I can't see how anyone could simply ignore the Squirrels' wickedness and justify their actions, unless he or she:

• has erotic fantasies about elves... or dwarfs, but I don't want to go there.
  
• has romantic fantasies about lost causes, even genocidal and shortsighted ones.
  
• has a strong dislike for any sort of organized religion in real life, and is unable to grasp the notion that the Order is a fictional one, completely unrelated to real world events.
  
• is curious about what would happen if Geralt was a complete hypocrite and a moron.

Because frankly, seeing Geralt siding with them is kissing goodbye my suspension of disbelief. It would be like seeing Geralt and Dandelion performing MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This" instead of a poem to Alina's ghost in The Fields, but without the funny.

Anyway, I digress. My question is, is there some sort of development or flashback about this matter in the future? Or I'll have to settle with "regardless of my choice, the Order defeated Toruviel and her unit in Murky Waters, and the peasants... I guess they survived"? Because I'd rather have a Geralt who does something to help them and then he realizes that the Order is a murderous cult, than a Geralt that only cared for his mission and left a bunch of peasants in the hands of some mad, juvenile terrorists suffering from teen angst.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Tlazolteotl]

You don't know what happens.

But then that's beside the point. Geralt is only one person, and he can't save everyone.
There are good points and bad points to every faction as well as every decision.

Besides, it's a war. People get killed, and people get caught in the middle.
The only way to minimise casualties in a war is to end it quickly.

All I can advise you to do, is keep a save game there and play the game to the end.
Then see for yourself how things turn out differently if you side with the order.

[game widow]

without spoiling it, it's difficult to advise you, other than to say that there are no easy answers and blood is shed no matter what  :peace:

[M.R.]

Quote

unlike Yaevinn, who is happy to murder helpless humans whenever he can

Afterwards, I learn that Yaevinn tricked me

Afterwards, I learn that Yaevinn tricked me

when I tell Yaevinn that I'm not going to take sides, he decides that I'm his enemy, as everyone who disagrees with him.

LOL

I'm starting to like this Yaevinn guy.

[secondchildren]

Interesting!  :D 
There are people around that think the Order is a fanatic murderers and some that think the same of the Scoia'tael :D

I'm afraid that the only thing that I can suggest you is to choice what you feel more comfortable for you. What you think it's right. As Tlazolteotl said, there are positive and negative points in both factions. You should just try more than one gameplay and change your choices any time (once you side with the order, once witch the scoia'tael, once you stay neutral) to see what happened and to have a more complete comprehension of the story. But if you want to know (or at least it's my opinion) there's no good and evil, no black or white. To use Sapkowsky's word. you must always choose the lesser evil.

Quote

• I'm sent in a mission to kill an alp who's impeding the retrieval of important ancient elven objects. Afterwards, I learn that Yaevinn tricked me to clear a path so he can rob a bank.

I do not personally agree with this, but it's your opinion and I respect  :peace:

[Tlazolteotl]

Well, I do agree with it ... but Yaevinn wasn't robbing a bank.
Yaevinn was reclaiming that which was robbed from Vivaldi.

[Carolina]

@Tlazolteotl
Thanks for your suggestions. I realize that blood will be shed, and I'm fine with that. In these kind of games I feel like I'm the director of a movie, and I try to achieve the most dramatic and coherent story at the end. I'm okey with innocent people dying in my script, or even main characters; what I'm not comfortable with is when my protagonist does something completely out of character, even if that's what I would do. For example, if I'm playing Batman: Arkham Asylum, I don't want him to kill immates, because that be out of place. Batman doesn't kill, not even rapists or murderers.

Well, the Geralt I've been playing for dozens of hours isn't blind, so I'm not comfortable with him fighting for the Order even after what he's witnessed in Old Vizima. Ergo, I'm taking the neutral path, even though I would like him to help the Order in Murky Waters.

Quote

Interesting!  :D 
There are people around that think the Order is a fanatic murderers and some that think the same of the Scoia'tael :D

Oh, but of course they both are murderous fanatics... it's just that the Order makes a better job of concealing it until the last chapter, making that hostage situation and its choice... tricky. It almost seems like if you choose to go neutral you leave some hostages to their luck... but after trying both paths, one can clearly see that the outcome of that standoff doesn't depend on your decision; the Order breaks its promise and storms the village regardless of your choice.

I don't have reasons to kill knights in that specific battle, but I can't stand Geralt vouching for them in every conversation afterwards. Telling Zoltan "yadda yadda yadda" and asking Foltest to back up the Order isn't very coherent with my previous actions in the game, so staying neutral is the only choice for me.

Quote

Well, I do agree with it ... but Yaevinn wasn't robbing a bank.
Yaevinn was reclaiming that which was robbed from Vivaldi.

Except that Vivaldi himself told him specifically that he would never, even if he had that money, support his cause. So he was just robbing a human bank in his eyes, even though I'd agree that its owners are dirty and doesn't deserve pity. If they didn't threatened innocent lives and punched downed elderly workers just for fun, I would've had a difficult time choosing my course of actions.

On a side note, it takes a very, very good game to make me join a forum and want to discuss about it. Despite some little technical issues, I find The Witcher as one of the best RPGs I've ever played. I'm happy that CD Projekt sold over a million copies. That's well deserved money.

[Tlazolteotl]

Quote

what I'm not comfortable with is when my protagonist does something completely out of character

Well ... there's also this little thing about the integrated nonhumans getting involved in the war because innocents on their side were being massacred.
Guilt by association, i.e. they get treated like terrorists, they might as well be terrorists.

On the subject of Batman, seriously the only reason there aren't casualties is 'cos the game said so.
I mean I'd place explosives on a high walkway, and boom! the guys would fall 2 storeys down and be unconscious.
While every non inmate that's down is also dead.
Not to mention long falls while brawling ... at the top of an elevator climb (near the start of the game), there's a bunch of thugs .. in the process of beating them up, some might fall down the elevator shaft.
Not dying is a bit hard to believe, there.

However, that's also one of the problems I have with batman's character. It may be in character for him never to kill, but it doesn't make any sense.
Like Cash said, you lock 'em up, they break out and a lot more people die.

[secondchildren]

Quote

Well, the Geralt I've been playing for dozens of hours isn't blind, so I'm not comfortable with him fighting for the Order even after what he's witnessed in Old Vizima. Ergo, I'm taking the neutral path, even though I would like him to help the Order in Murky Waters.

Unfortunatly, this is the last chance you have to make your choice in the game. So if you side with one or another, it's definitive from this point and on.

Quote

Except that Vivaldi himself told him specifically that he would never, even if he had that money, support his cause. So he was just robbing a human bank in his eyes, even though I'd agree that its owners are dirty and doesn't deserve pity. If they didn't threatened innocent lives and punched downed elderly workers just for fun, I would've had a difficult time choosing my course of actions.

Well, I think Yeavinn's reason about that it's a bit more....moral (but i'm not justifying his deeds). I think the bank represented something for the Old Races, something that still human must not "contaminated". As any terrorist actions, it's a sort of symbolic. Think to the Twin Towers attack (to mention something very tragical and painful). I don't know if I explain... 

Quote

On a side note, it takes a very, very good game to make me join a forum and want to discuss about it. Despite some little technical issues, I find The Witcher as one of the best RPGs I've ever played. I'm happy that CD Projekt sold over a million copies. That's well deserved money.

Well said  :peace:

[Carolina]

Quote

Well, I think Yeavinn's reason about that it's a bit more....moral (but i'm not justifying his deeds). I think the bank represented something for the Old Races, something that still human must not "contaminated". As any terrorist actions, it's a sort of symbolic. Think to the Twin Towers attack (to mention something very tragical and painful). I don't know if I explain... 

I tend to agree, it was something that pertained to non-humans and humans overtook it. I'm sure it was symbolic for Yaevinn.

That said, in my game I informed Yaevinn about the hostile takeover when I delivered Vivaldi's letter. I wonder what would be his stance if I would've said that Vivaldi was morally and ideologically opposed to the Squirrels. In that case, I guess he would justify his actions by seeing Vivaldi as a collaborationist, and deserving of being robbed.

Quote

Well ... there's also this little thing about the integrated nonhumans getting involved in the war because innocents on their side were being massacred.
Guilt by association, i.e. they get treated like terrorists, they might as well be terrorists.

I can understand how, after witnessing the Order killing women, children and every non-human they can find in Vizima, the previously assimilated non-humans leaned towards the Scoia'tael. It's sad, but it's understandable; much like humans segregating non-humans in general after the massacres perpetrated by the Squirrels. Violence usually spawns more violence, unless it's overpowering and definitive.

They can kill each other as they please, though, I'm not against that. Until someone decides to murder neutral nurses in front of me: then they become dead elves, dead dwarfs, and dead knights. There's plenty steel for everyone and the Graveirs will be happy.

About Batman, I agree that it makes no sense, but common sense went out of the window as soon as a rich guy decided to wear pointy ears and jump from rooftops. It's the goddamn Batman, I don't expect realism, but as with any other fictional work, I expect internal coherence. I'm more of a Garth Ennis's Punisher MAX girl, though. As Zoltan said, moral relativism is the only true evil of these times.

But anyway, we're going off-topic here. I consider my original question answered. Thanks for your responses and nice to meet you all.

[Tlazolteotl]

Fair enough@Batman ...

It does work in context, though ... 'cos it's Batman.
The supervillains he's up against is more than happy to (for example) never go for a cheap win.
They do the classic comic book thing of building up to a showdown, monologues, always leaving a way out, etc.
'cos all that stuff is ok in the comics.

[Postumo]

Hey guys, i'm new here.

I'm reading the books like crazy after i finished the game.

The scot'aiel thing has a lot to do with the books: Geralt doesn't want to take side on the war between humans and non humans. The scotaiel side with Nilfgaard in the Empire vs Northern Kingdoms war... The game is set after that war and the scotaiel are quite hurt by that time, their forces are reduced to a few groups.

In the books Geralt is forced to fight them because they are as merciless as the human´s armies.

The game takes this point very well, you have to choose, you're put in difficult situations. Maybe scotaiel look bad and cruel because they are, and by the time of the game happens, they are desperate. You have the possibility ot trying to take moral decisions, trying to help everyone or, at least, trying to get by without no one being hurt. You realise that's impossible. You decide what's the lesser evil

Thinking about it, both sides are bad: the flaming rose and scotiael are similar,although, by the beginning the flaming rose folks seem like cool guys

[Corylea]

Someone on the Dragon Age website, who goes by AshTheKing001 over there, (thanks to gorthuar for the pointer to that thread) phrased it this way:

Quote

Do you prefer Personal Freedom at the price of chaos and anarchy or Safety and Stability at the price of Tyranny? Do you sacrifice few to save the many, or do you value individuals as highly as groups?

I think that's an elegant summary.