[WrathAscending]

In The Witcher the stakes were a lot lower since you didn't have entire kingdoms blaming you for the death of their monarchs and time was generally less of a cruch issue since you weren't being actively hunted. In TW2, Geralt is well and truly on the clock, and nobody else has the resources to deliver what he needs.

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

To label a person or a movement as "terrorist" is to damn them beyond redemption so that we may (without disturbing our conscience) refuse to consider whether there is anything in defense of their cause.

Allow me to be perfectly clear on what I deem to be a terrorist.

A terrorist is someone who goes out of his way to target non-combatants for the sake of striking terror.

By that definition Iorveth is a terrorist, and there is no defense for his former cause of exterminating humans, and yes his cause did change.

[ZinuX]

rchristie said:

Very true. In TW1 you have a neutral option. I disliked the fact you actually have to take sides in the sequel. ›››

That is (story wise) the case because Geralt needs a boat, and either goes with Roche or steals the barge with Iorveth. He simply can't go on foot without Iorveth's OK, which he only gets by stealing that barge.

[BarisM]

What CDPR did with the paths was just genius. It definitely does NOT have to be about supporting the "terrorists" or "non-human haters" or whatever you want to call them this time around, no way. I certainly thought so at first but I was very pleasantly surprised.

My first playthrough, I chose Iorveth and second, of course Roche. Both paths are very different and very enjoyable. You're given the choice to still stay neutral even when "fighting for Upper Aedirn"! Awesome. Still, I found Roche's path more interesting. (Although, when only individuals concerned as in Roche vs Iorveth, Iorveth is a more interesting character in my opinion.)

Before my second playthrough, I read how different the paths were, the locations, the characters, the plot, everything changed. What I didn't expect was how the general "feeling" of the game and how my Geralt changed. Iorveth's path feels more vulnerable. You feel more vulnerable. You side with your friends, aiding them. You can take down a king's army but you're still mostly ignored by the mighty powers, trying to catch up, make your voice heard while feeling left out, not taken seriously enough. Underlined even more with the half of the map completely inaccessable to you and hostile soldiers everywhere. You can only get a glimpse of the grand chess being played by the monarchs and the mages.

On Roche's path, I felt Geralt was more in his element. He does his witcher's work, he knows his witcher's work. He's neck deep in politics, yet can still somewhat distance himself. Until a certain point that is. (Though even then, if you choose so, your reasoning as to why someone dies or is left alive can be based on friendship and personal feelings alone if your Geralt is hellbent on not thinking or caring about the big picture). Even though I thought I would be closer to the kingslayer if I went with Iorveth, actually it was Roche's path that gave me better look. Now that was a twist as far as I'm concerned ^^

So I prefer Roche's path if I have to pick one. But I really enjoyed both immensely. And sorry for the long post but I'm really blown away here.

[Megakoresh]

I do not really think that the Scoiatel theme is well delivered in the game, because there is literally nothing good they do. They only kill innocents, attack civilian settlements and have no explanation to such actions. Keep in mind, that I am not talking about the "cause". It's the theme of the game that lets down in this aspect, which is supposed to offer you a view of both good and bad about factions. Far as Scoiatel go, there IS nothing good they do.

And they only fought with Saskia because Iorveth fell in love with her, not because that's what they do, in fact it's quite the opposite

If Witcher 3 will continue the line with Scoiatel, I hope they do it better. there is literally no moral reason for siding with them. None.

Roche is, on the other hand, the one to free you and he is a patriot who tries to do better for his country. There is every reason for going with him. On another hand, his path is a lot more boring, in my opinion.

So it comes down to what you prefer. Going with Iorveth will give you a more varied and interesting setting, better side-quests and characters, but it is an immoral choice. Going with Roche is morally correct to a certain extend (at least there are reasons for it), but the path is less interesting, locations are not as varied and characters are such douchebags that each and every one deserves a punch in the face and nothing more.

Roche's Act III could be, on the other hand, more interesting to those who care about Politics. Iorveth's path offers a Tomb Raider-style quest with solving ancient mysteries (i.e. Puzzles) and getting treasures and such. Pretty cool, although buggy, but Roche's quest explains a lot of things.

[Qethsegol]

This my 3rd playthrough. In my first, i went with Roche. Ves was great but camp was extremely boring (comparing to the iorveth side missions). In my second playthrough i went with Iorveth. He was just better. I will go with Iorweth in this one too

[Radovid V.]

I like both of them on Iorveth's path. Roche'll save you even when you didn't help him with Loredo and Iorveth is simply great character.
On Roche's path I don't like both of them , because Roche is jerk and Iorveth is just screaming guy. He even won't thank you when you save him.

[RSIK4]

i love both of them ...i would like to continue my TW3 path with Roche...After that Iorveth...most of the times i played with roche's path ....

[Revan 1]

Hello,

I have a philosophical problem regarding this choice but before exposing it, let me express my opinion on both path.

Both are great. Iorveth one has some of Geralt old friends, allow him to take distance with Temeria, a little more side quests in act 2, Filipa Eilhart, a more active search for Triss, a better confrontation with shilard in act 2, a little more Nilfgardiens to dispose off. There are things that bother me but i will explain after.

Roche one has a great atmosphere, a great music, Henselt is grandiose, especially his speech at the end of act 2, Detmold, a more active search for the assassins. Geralt get to learn more about Sabrina and her curse, he has to find every artefacts and he can more easily take distance from the coming fight. You can settle things with Roche when Geralt choose to finally attend to his own matters in act 3.

Now let's get to things that bothers me and my philosophical problem. I am always doing my best to play Geralt as he would be according to the books. (I am a huge fan of the witcher universe, books and games)

First when you have to choose witch boat to take in act 1, Geralt from the books would want to find Triss, no matter if he see her as his friend or his lover.
What Iorveth tells him is quite clear, he is going to Vergen, where is Filipa Eilhart, where Letho wanted Triss to teleport him.
Then what he gets from Roche is quite unclear, he wants Loredo dead, Henselt would be behind the hostile take over of Flotsam. Ok but where are we going next, Henselt camp near Vergen? Not so easy to guess so during my first game, Geralt took Iorveth's boat because Vernon's plan was lacking of clarity. If you assume that Geralt figure out Vernon next move, then it make sens to take his boat, no reason to think that Letho is gonna release Triss, witch he does but Geralt can't know that and Henselt is likely to be the next king on the list. So that makes sens to want to get ahead of Letho and get him and triss with the same stone, so to speak.

At the beginning of act 2, Geralt can't know that the mist is about to appear, that Letho left Triss behind and that his search is kind of compromise if he went with Roche. Yet the game seems to assume at some points that Geralt knew full well that he would go after Triss with Iorveth and after the assassins with Roche.(some talks with Dandelion, a sentence that change when you have rescued Triss in act 3.) Geralt is no seer so this is really strange sometimes.

On both paths, Saskia seems to believe that Geralt has nothing else to do but to join her forces. She is assuming quite immediatly that you are here to help them when you come with Iorveth and try to enlist you when you come from the other side. She asks your reason for being in vergen or in henselt's camp, witch allow Geralt to say that this conflict is not his concern. Still i wish that there were more opportunity to make her understand and to iorveth that he didn't came around to become a freedom fighter.

On act 3, you can tell Roche that Geralt is done playing spy with him but you can't say it to Iorveth who seems to believe that Geralt came in Loc Muinne to rescue Saskia.

When all is said and done, i prefer Roche path but the fact that it doesn't feel natural before you know clearly where he is going and the game who assume that Geralt knew the consequence regarding the "search for Triss" part bother me.

So my philosophical problem is that i love both paths, with a slim favor for Roche one but i don't know witch one make my canon in regards to the fact that Geralt priority shoud be to find Triss.

[charmes]

I love Iorveth

[Bloth]

@Revan1: You won't get to Vergen before Letho and Triss, teleportation is instantaneous. Look at where Vergen is on the map, inland from the Pontar, it doesn't matter whose boat you take, you'll still have to leg it to the mining town, on what is essentially almost the same route. Roche feels no need to tell you where he's going because he's hunting the Kingslayer, who as you know was last seen with Triss, thus your two courses are identical.

Hope this helps.

[Revan 1]

Quote

@Revan1: You won't get to Vergen before Letho and Triss, teleportation is instantaneous. Look at where Vergen is on the map, inland from the Pontar, it doesn't matter whose boat you take, you'll still have to leg it to the mining town, on what is essentially almost the same route. Roche feels no need to tell you where he's going because he's hunting the Kingslayer, who as you know was last seen with Triss, thus your two courses are identical.

Hope this helps.

Thank you, i know that teleportation is instantaneous and Vergen isn't next door to Flotsam but the main problem is in small details happening after Geralt made his choice: in act 3 Iorveth Path, when he rescue Triss, he say something like " I have travel half the world to find you".
In act 3 Roche he say instead " When i left Flotsam with Vernon, i somehow doubted i would find you so soon".

In act 2 both paths he can talk with Dandelion about the kingslayers and Triss, i don't remember the exact dialog but in each path it sound that Geralt knew before making the choice that follow one path or the other would compromise his search for triss in Roche path and for the assassins in Iorveth one, just like the changing dialog in act 3.

There may seem minors things easy to overlook but i can't because picturing Geralt chosing duty over something more personnal, would it be friendship, love or even guilt seem completely out of character to me.

This all thing is driving me insane because Geralt from the books could choose both path, but if he is already supposed to know the kind of consequences regarding the kingslayers and Triss, like the game implies, then that only leave one option: Iorveth.

[Bloth]

But Geralt doesn't know at the point when he makes that choice, both characters paths will lead to Triss as far as he's concerned, if you're basing the choice on what he will say in the future then you're assuming Geralt is clairvoyant. Personally I never playthrough using such meta knowledge, but it's your decision.

[Revan 1]

Sorry, i must have miswrite, not use to write in English.

I don't like metagaming either, i always do as if Geralt doesn't know anything of course.
My problem is that what he says in the future make it sound he knew the consequences before making his choice. You see?

[Bloth]

I'd argue that the logical path to pursue Letho is Iorveth's, the elf has long worked with and assisted the Viper in his slayings, what better way to find the assassin than by suborning his former conspirator. Then again I don't really see the problem with the Triss and Jaskier dialogues, neither has Geralt openly state the reasoning behind his choice of ally, or that he chose to not pursue Triss.

Your english is exemplary Revan.

[Revan 1]

You are problably right, beside, both logic and guts told me to go with Iorveth the first time i played, so this is more natural. Luckily both path are almost equal to me.

Thank you for your help, Blothulfur.

[Prometeus]

Both are great characters, and I owe one to Roche for saving me in the nilfgaardian camp. But if we consider other things, the only reason to chose Roche's path is to f..... Ves

[Revan 1]

I would say that when you know the game, it is more attractive to go with Roche because you know Geralt can stick to his ideas of neutrality and won't be force to take part in the fight. In roleplay perspective, Iorveth path, as Geralt doesn't know the future, seems more efficient to achieve his goals. He is later force to join the rebels during the battle but well, nothing is perfect. And getting the world rid of Vandehamar, Cynthia and Adalbert is a priceless bonus.

As for Ves, i suppose there is no accompting for taste, as Letho would put it.

[Ogold]

Roche. I could go into a long argument about the two's motives, morals and actions but lets face it the human has the better hat.

[Amelia Hunter]

I always chose Iorveth, since he's cool and does a good thing fighting for a better life for everyone. His ideals are close to mine, so I always chose Iorveth's path, always.