[Vokshev]

I have played one playthrough and been wanting to start a second...but i'm stuck on this dilemma.

If Geralt is neutral/did not take the Sciotael's side during TW1, why would he suddenly decides to switch sides from working with Roche whose King was also his employer to hand Iorveth a weapon in Act 1 to fight the blue stripes? It seems like a rather unusual choice.

And in Chapter 3, it also seems unlikely that he will choose to help Roche instead of saving Triss, given that if he could not care less about politics and especially if he romanced Triss. And Letho being employed by the empire saving Triss when Geralt did not is equally baffling...

[Elysis One]

Geralt choices are not about the neutral path, but about the lesser evil. There are some things he just cannot stay neutral, so he always, at least according to the books, choose what he thinks is the lesser evil.

[FoggyFishburne]

Well, I guess that's the beauty of the Witcher games. The choices are yours to make and it is up to you to explain and validate the ethics behind them. That way, there's a coherence between your choices which other people may also deduce if they carefully analyse your choices. Perhaps that's a lazy and indeed inferior way to look at the design of the games but I think it holds up. The main reason why it holds up though is because Red is awesome and they realize that it is vital to question the player about his choices.

Geralt is the avatar. When you choose, say, to follow Roche, later in the brothel camp, both Dandelion and Zoltan asks the avatar (you) what you will do with Letho when you find him. You give a reason and then you get feedback on your decision. You get a chance to present your intentions and the world then responds to you. That way you get a chance to explain why you made certain decisions and also what the games are fundamentally about to you. Is Witcher 2 about you clearing your name or giving the people of Upper Aedirn a chance for independence? Or is it about you getting answers from Letho about your past? Or, hell, it may even be about preserving the country of the King who promised you riches and wealth and most importantly, freedom to live with Triss in solitude, in a vain hope that perhaps a count will recognize the King's wish and thus grant Geralt the emancipation he seeks.

Maybe I'm full of shit, I don't know. Sometimes I start rambling, especially when I've had a couple of vodka martinis. My point is, as long as you get a chance to express yourself and the world gives you feedback, you can always validate your position in the context of the world you're occupying. Then again, the designers need to be clearheaded enough to not give you some completely unrelated choice that seems to clash with the narrative. Consistency is obviously an integral component.

[Wut the Melon]

Giving the sword to Iorveth seems more logical to me than helping Roche. Geralt doesn't care about the Roche - Iorveth conflict, so I'd just let them fight it out. The game seems to consider this a decision to help Iorveth, even though it actually just means you don't interfere in the fighting...

His choices in the games are often VERY different from what I'd think Geralt from the books would do, though. I mean, why would he fight Foltest's wars? Even in the game, he complains that he wants to leave, but only after fighting the war...

[slimgrin]

-Geralt has no alliance to Foltest. He's his bodyguard only because in The Witcher games you don't refuse a king's request lightly. He never lists avenging Foltest as a reason to take down the assassins. By extension, Geralt doesn't have loyalty to Roche, although not aiding him after he helps Geralt escape is selfish to me.

-Triss, despite being very close to Geralt, is as opaque as all the other NPC's treating Geralt like a tool. She withholds information from him through the entirety of both games. And maybe some gamers just don't like her, or her affiliations. Which is perfectly understandable.

-The game uses emotion as much as logic to sway player decision. Siding with Iorveth seems less about logic and more about empathy. The reasons to side with Roche are apparent early on. The reasons to side with the Iorveth become clearer later in the game, on his path.

-There are a few inconsistencies between the two games, but that always happens in sequels, and I've come to expect it. To a degree. What's more important is each iteration stands on its own.

[Vokshev]

It just seems to me that Iorveth is too much of an extremist, I'd like to help the non-humans, just wondering if there is a...less violent way, kinda sad when I see the dwarves hang when Vergen was taken.

Still struggling inside if I should try Dark mode in Iorveth path or do Roche's path again. Dammit!

[slimgrin]

Vokshev said:

It just seems to me that Iorveth is too much of an extremist, I'd like to help the non-humans, just wondering if there is a...less violent way, kinda sad when I see the dwarves hang when Vergen was taken.
›››

In this game, no. If you help Iorveth and Saskia in Vergen, it'll be through violence.

[Random drowner]

Vokshev said:

I have played one playthrough and been wanting to start a second...but i'm stuck on this dilemma.

If Geralt is neutral/did not take the Sciotael's side during TW1, why would he suddenly decides to switch sides from working with Roche whose King was also his employer to hand Iorveth a weapon in Act 1 to fight the blue stripes? It seems like a rather unusual choice.

And in Chapter 3, it also seems unlikely that he will choose to help Roche instead of saving Triss, given that if he could not care less about politics and especially if he romanced Triss. And Letho being employed by the empire saving Triss when Geralt did not is equally baffling... ›››

As already pointed out, its about Geralt choosing the lesser evil and being loyal to his friends.

Giving Iorveth a sword might not seem that great if you did not side with the squirrels in W1, but if you are playing a "neutral" Geralt who does not want to be used as a piece in that particular conflict, giving Iorveth the sword could (given some good will although I guess some would call it a bit of a stretch, perhaps with good reason) be a sign of Geralt "levelling the playing field"

Following Iorveth to Vergen could be motivated both with sympathizing with the goals of the non-humans and hoping to influence them to stay away from attacking non-military targets and, of course, following the trail of Triss. (This might be a reason why Geralt could come to help the squirrels to break out Iorverth if he was captured).

I agree on your take on chapter 3. My Geralt would never be able to kill Letho if he saved Triss (given my Geralt cared for Triss, which he always do in one way or the other). But then I never did Roches path.

[Random drowner]

Vokshev said:

It just seems to me that Iorveth is too much of an extremist, I'd like to help the non-humans, just wondering if there is a...less violent way, kinda sad when I see the dwarves hang when Vergen was taken.

Still struggling inside if I should try Dark mode in Iorveth path or do Roche's path again. Dammit! ›››

Its violent, but it is self-defence.

[Bloth]

Geralts goal is to find the Kingslayer, what better way to do this than by turning Letho's former ally to his own purpose? Even Roche with his contacts and informers scattered across the north will not have as much of an intimate perspective on the Viper as will Iorveth. And what better way to turn the scoiatael to your side than taking his side over that of Roche, potentially saving his life.

In a few ways this is like turning Siegfried against the Order in the first game, it turns the enemies strength to your advantage, something that Geralt as a wise old warrior will know all too well. That's how I reasoned out that situation in my own Iorveth playthroughs anyway.

My take on prioritising Anais over Triss is based on two things: One Triss is a grown woman and strong sorceress, well able to take care of herself. Two survivors guilt over Foltests murder while under the white wolfs care, and a resolution to make it up to the child (and her father.)

Letho i've always thought was simply making good on the promise he made to Geralt about Triss in the elven baths, that he would not knowingly cause harm to the sorceress. As we know he's a man of his word, and left Triss in the care of the goodly Troll couple rather than killing them and her, as it would have been all too easy for him to do. And when black Nilfgaard takes the sorceress he frees her as soon as his main task allows, thus proving once more that he's not the white wolfs enemy.