[Geralt The Riv]

roche!!!! FTW!!!!

[Wichat]

Iorveth, of course />

[WrathAscending]

In the first game, I sympathised with both the Order and the Scoia'tel; while the Order's goals were not so bad their methods were quite horrific, and I can well understand the motivations of the Squirrels given how badly they are oppressed in human society, without a nation of their own to defend them.

In the second game, though, I just can't sympathise at all with Roche. Iorveth is an idealist, if somewhat jaded, and seems to truly want to be able to stop fighting. Roche, though? He and the Blue Stripes just seem to be violent sociopaths, and the casual racism they espouse along with the way they treated the people of Flotsam really soured me on his path, badass though he and Foltest may have been.

[Costin Moroianu]

And you think the Scoia'Tael and Iorveth are not at all racist? If anything they are even more so then Roche and the humans can hope.

I am sorry but you are giving excuses for a bunch of genocidal murderers ( Scoia'Tael ) while talking about the crimes of the humans.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Roche, it's my canon.
But I'll also import Iorveth's to see what happens.

[Rezo Inverse]

Iorveth's path.

Rescued Aryan, Lifting Saskias curse, Saving Sile and Killing Letho.

[Aditya_the_warrior_within]

I play Iorveth/Triss first then try with the others whichever yields the best one in TW3 steam messed up my saved files, everything is present now I'll have to manually see which is which. I hope when importing we get a list of already made choices at the start of TW3 that is a something of a no brainer must

[M4xw0lf]

The question should be: which save won't I use?
I'll certainly try at least three or four different settings -Iorveth/Roche, Letho alive/dead, Temeria saved/divided...

[gaurdian]

truth be told . . . every thing in nature has its own drawback.
it's a fact for every being.
Roche and Iorveth both have some points in their struggle, but the important part is how they try to reach their goal.
Roche is somehow a more reasonable fellow, I could say the same thing for yaevinn in withcher 1.

[VonStreff]

▫ Dona ▫ said:

This, exactly. They just give you (a rather weak) mutagen and Geralt even makes a joke about it. Nothing will happen. ›››

Ah, thank you. My dreams are shattered. lol All good. I'm sure CDProjektRED will do an excellent job of carrying the info across. They are the most fan-dedicated company I have come across so far. And they have the best fans. So yes, it does pay off, you other companies!

[WrathAscending]

Costin Moroianu said:

And you think the Scoia'Tael and Iorveth are not at all racist? If anything they are even more so then Roche and the humans can hope.

Iorveth at least talks about having a realm where human, dwarf, and elf are all welcome to live together without the ghettoes and pogroms that come standard with human society. Granted, this may be a pipe dream and he might flip out and murder every human in the upper Aedirn as soon as he gets the chance, but he's still fighting for something better than Roche.

Quote

I am sorry but you are giving excuses for a bunch of genocidal murderers ( Scoia'Tael ) while talking about the crimes of the humans.

Neither side has clean hands, but Roche is fighting for the status quo while Iorveth fights for change- a change that will be for the better, at least in the upper Aedirn. In a fair and just world they'd both be executed for their crimes, but unfortunately the world of The Witcher is neither, so we kinda have to just make do...

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

Iorveth at least talks about having a realm where human, dwarf, and elf are all welcome to live together without the ghettoes and pogroms that come standard with human society. Granted, this may be a pipe dream and he might flip out and murder every human in the upper Aedirn as soon as he gets the chance, but he's still fighting for something better than Roche.

Iorveth fights for Saskia and the ideals she has...right now. What the game doesn't do a good job at telling you is that Iorveth in the past fought to slaughter humans, all humans. And he murdered men, women and children. He burnt entire villages to the ground and spared no one.

Has he changed? Sure but what the game doesn't do a great job of telling you is that Iorveth did fight to exterminate all humans at one point.

Quote

Neither side has clean hands, but Roche is fighting for the status quo while Iorveth fights for change- a change that will be for the better, at least in the upper Aedirn. In a fair and just world they'd both be executed for their crimes, but unfortunately the world of The Witcher is neither, so we kinda have to just make do...

Roche fights for Foltest and his legacy nothing less nothing more. He doesn't fight for the status quo in regards to the treatment of the elves. In fact he doesn't care.

He's a loyal buldog who has only known one real father: Foltest, and for that man he would go into the fire and die for him gladly. That is what motivates him, that is his reason. Not some nation, or ideology or race but his loyalty to Foltest.

I mean really do you see Roche go on and on about race? Sure he wants to kill Iorveth but he spends more time dealing with the political situation of Temeria to make sure his country doesn't collapse into chaos.

[▫ Dona ▫]

Costin Moroianu said:

Has he changed? Sure but what the game doesn't do a great job of telling you is that Iorveth did fight to exterminate all humans at one point.

Actually, I'd argue it does. The whole prologue and quite a bit of Act 1 goes on and on about Iorveth being a horrible person. I quite hated him until I got to talk to him in Act 2. Tho I agree they make him look a bit too nice/calm, especially in EE where they edited out a couple of 'aggressive' animations. And yeah, they kind of forget to mention his past for the rest of the game, except in Saskia's ending dialogue.

I see him and Roche as two sides of one coin. They're both accused of similar murders, the only difference being the reason they did it. And neither is better or worse because the trail of bodies behind them is the same.

It's funny because I was pretty dead-set on siding with Roche until he mindlessly attacked Letho in the rose garden. "Kill first and ask questions later" kind of mindset is utterly ridiculous to me and I didn't want to support someone who's going to potentially mess things up because of blind hotheadedness.

[WrathAscending]

Costin Moroianu said:

Iorveth fights for Saskia and the ideals she has...right now. What the game doesn't do a good job at telling you is that Iorveth in the past fought to slaughter humans, all humans. And he murdered men, women and children. He burnt entire villages to the ground and spared no one.

All true, but Roche leads a unit that did exactly the same thing to elf and dwarf non-combatants. Roche's unit behaves pretty badly in Flotsam- desecrating shrines and assaulting civilians- and his response to that is to back his men and threaten further violence. Neither of them are particularly nice; both have done things that, if I'd had the option, I'd have killed them for.

The game doesn't allow that, though. And as you play, you have to pick a side. Support Roche, and things in Temeria stay the same for non-humans. Squirrels will still be killing humans who venture out of the cities and raiding against them, and humans will be persecuting non-humans in the cities. Support Iorveth, and through Saskia there will be a new realm to which non-humans can immigrate and gain a better life; it will also hopefully serve as incentive for Squirrel units to stand down in other regions, potentially even to serve as the standing military for Aedirn; Saskia's only interested in defending her holdings and people, so they'd not be turned loose like the Nilfgaardians did.

Quote

Roche fights for Foltest and his legacy nothing less nothing more. He doesn't fight for the status quo in regards to the treatment of the elves. In fact he doesn't care.

It's the outcome of what he's fighting for, though. Temeria is probably going to splinter no matter what since the best candidate for the job of leading the country- John Natalis- won't be supported by the nobles he'd need to take the throne. He might serve as regent until Anais is married and has children, but his position then is tenous at best.

Quote

He's a loyal buldog who has only known one real father: Foltest, and for that man he would go into the fire and die for him gladly. That is what motivates him, that is his reason. Not some nation, or ideology or race but his loyalty to Foltest.

I feel some sympathy for him as a character, but not enough to want to support him or even really play Roche's path

[slimgrin]

The game's story telling makes it clear what kind of person Iorveth was, but when Geralt meets him, it lacks the visual illustration needed to reinforce that. So he really doesn't seem that bad. He's way worse than Roche if you consider his crimes against humanity. Roche is an impulsive, hot headed mercenary. Iorveth is a cold blooded killer. I think they downplayed that to make him a viable ally for Geralt.

[dragonbird]

I agree with Dona, that Iorveth and Roche are two sides of the same coin, and that both are guilty of things that we (and Geralt) wouldn't approve of. The beauty is that whoever you ally with, you don't need to endorse those actions. You're left with the freedom to assign other motives to Geralt's choice, and allow him to work with his ally without turning to the dark side. This, to me, is the greatest strength of the game.

slimgrin said:

The game's story telling makes it clear what kind of person Iorveth was, but when Geralt meets him, it lacks the visual illustration needed to reinforce that. So he really doesn't seem that bad. He's way worse than Roche if you consider his crimes against humanity. Roche is an impulsive, hot headed mercenary. Iorveth is a cold blooded killer. I think they downplayed that to make him a viable ally for Geralt. ›››

Prologue. Roche casually talking about torturing a monk in order to find the secret entrance to the monastery. He's just as cold-blooded.

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

"Kill first and ask questions later" kind of mindset is utterly ridiculous to me and I didn't want to support someone who's going to potentially mess things up because of blind hotheadedness.

That's Roche for you, and oh yes he irritated me greatly there.

Enough to ignore the chance to nab Iorveth and have him potentially hanged? Never.

Quote

Roche's unit behaves pretty badly in Flotsam- desecrating shrines and assaulting civilians- and his response to that is to back his men and threaten further violence. Neither of them are particularly nice; both have done things that, if I'd had the option, I'd have killed them for.

They don't assault civilians ( unless you count said civilians entering the barracks to provoke a fight ), and they only threw knives at a bloody puppet, oh yes such great crimes they committed.

As for Roche. His reaction was expected considering his past.

Quote

if I'd had the option, I'd have killed them for.

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Tolkien.

Quote

It's the outcome of what he's fighting for, though. Temeria is probably going to splinter no matter what since the best candidate for the job of leading the country- John Natalis- won't be supported by the nobles he'd need to take the throne. He might serve as regent until Anais is married and has children, but his position then is tenous at best.

Then you haven't played Roche's path to know what you are talking about.

Quote

I feel some sympathy for him as a character, but not enough to want to support him or even really play Roche's path

Then that's your problem and not something I care for. Like whoever you want.

Quote

Prologue. Roche casually talking about torturing a monk in order to find the secret entrance to the monastery. He's just as cold-blooded.

Iorveth, having a sadistic pleasure in murdering women and children. To me he's worse.

[▫ Dona ▫]

slimgrin said:

[...] He's way worse than Roche if you consider his crimes against humanity. Roche is an impulsive, hot headed mercenary. Iorveth is a cold blooded killer. I think they downplayed that to make him a viable ally for Geralt. ›››

Yeah, absolutely. I think they went overboard with 'downplaying' him, though, I was really disappointed we didn't get to see him truly 'in action' (no, posing on top of Vergen walls doesn't count), not to mention they made it look like there would be some kind of showdown between him and Vernon. Something serious. Instead we got badly written slash fanfiction that doesn't even fit the damn timeline.

I think Roche's path was intended to be the 'first choice', but if you look at achievements on Steam and Xbox Live, you'll see how few people played Roche's path. So they downplayed Iorveth even more in EE. Sigh :/

WrathAscending said:

I feel some sympathy for him as a character, but not enough to want to support him or even really play Roche's path

Regardless of what you feel about Roche, I think you should play his path. It isn't about Roche, after all, and it has a few really nice side-quests you shouldn't miss.

Oh, and Roche really shines in the end of Act 2 and through the entire Act 3. It's worth it.

[WrathAscending]

Quote

They don't assault civilians ( unless you count said civilians entering the barracks to provoke a fight ), and they only threw knives at a bloody puppet, oh yes such great crimes they committed.

I think there were townsfolk talking about how the Blue Stripes were roughing them up, but even so what they talk about during the Hung Over quest is distasteful, and silly as the Veyopatis cult may be they were still guests and didn't need to desecrate a holy icon. The Blue Stripes are above the law and they know it; the way they took advantage of that is pretty unpleasant.

Quote

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Tolkien.

You've got to choose Iorveth's or Roche's path, though. I find Iorveth to be the slightly lesser of the two evils given what he stands to accomplish with Saskia, though I know not everyone would agree.

▫ Dona ▫ said:

I agree with Dona, that Iorveth and Roche are two sides of the same coin, and that both are guilty of things that we (and Geralt) wouldn't approve of. The beauty is that whoever you ally with, you don't need to endorse those actions. You're left with the freedom to assign other motives to Geralt's choice, and allow him to work with his ally without turning to the dark side. This, to me, is the greatest strength of the game.

Pretty much. I despise Iorveth- or at least who he was in the past- but bringing him to Saskia seems to me as though it will have a bigger potential payoff than going to Henselt with Roche. Even so, with another Nilfgaardian war looming, Saskia had better be able to forge Aedirn into the realm she wants, or everyone's stuffed when the Black Ones come calling again. I figure if you are going to get involved in the political moving and shaking going on within the game, you may as well go all out.

Quote

Oh, and Roche really shines in the end of Act 2 and through the entire Act 3. It's worth it.

I will, but I only got the game for Christmas and am on my first playthough. Dark Mode was perhaps not the best choice for that, but I'll get around to exploring Roche's path eventually. For now, I'm siding with Iorveth.

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

I think Roche's path was intended to be the 'first choice', but if you look at achievements on Steam and Xbox Live, you'll see how few people played Roche's path. So they downplayed Iorveth even more in EE. Sigh :/

Uhm based on steam achievements only 34% of people who bought TW2 actually finished ACT 1, and only 24% actually finished the game.

However achievements which can only be achieved on Roche's path are optional. Still 4% spared Henselt which means 20% didn't do it or didn't play the path. Considering how unpopular Henselt is I wouldn't be surprised that the people who did kill him was higher, if not double. So let's say 6-8% killed Henselt.

That means it's about and even 10-12% that did finish ACT 2 on Roche's path. As for the low % of people who saved Anais, well that doesn't mean they didn't go with Roche and quite frankly I've seen a lot of people who chose to save Triss instead of Anais.

I wouldn't count them as hard statistics personally. I know more people played Iorveth's path overall but it's probably at most a 10% difference between the paths players who finished the game picked.

Though having only 24% of people finishing the game...well that's quite low, very low. Though it shouldn't surprise anyone.