Costin Moroianu said:
Roche. While I like Iorveth's path it just felt like a very weak reason to help him in Act I whereas it made perfect sense with Roche, I mean seriously Iorveth helped kill Foltest and tried to kill Geralt, why should I just trust him? Roche on the other hand helped Geralt by saving him.
This, so many times this. Other than player being interested in an alternativre path, and perhaps feeling pitty for the Elves, there's no reason to help Iorveth. Roche proved trustworthy, reliable and honourbound. The only thing we know about Iorveth at this point is that he framed Geralt into murder of his benefactor. Why should Geralt even want to aid him, instead of sticking with Roche - a man he can surely trust?
If there was some valid reason e.g. Iorveth convincingly offering some intel on Geralt's past or Yennefer or even the conspiracy, then one would be faced with a serious dilemma: to stay along a good companion, or to follow a lead that might shed some light on the past and future events. Alas...
Roche is consistently good from the start - he is sharp, ingenious, and dedicated but also moody and gruff and prone to attacks of rage. A flawed character who seems very much alive.
To be fair - Iorveth isn't half-bad later on - he proves focused, reliable, uncharacteristically gentle and ponderous. One wishes, however, there was something about his quest that could really make Geralt stop and think about joining him, beyond emotional impact he might have. What we get now, is very contrived, and goes against sombre, logical analysis of your options that all of Sapkowski's works extol.
One of the two low parts in admittedly otherwise excellent narrative.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.