[Fight4Glory96]

Hi all,
I just finished the game playing Ioverth's side and I was thinking on the choices I did during my playthrough. Then, I thought what would have been Geralt's choices? I mean the Geralt of the books, let's say the Sapkowski's one. What do you think? Sorry for my English, I think I was quite clear.

[Kallelinski]

I may hint at this thread here
http://en.thewitcher...troughspoilers/

[Fight4Glory96]

I have already seen that post but after a point people get talking of their choices, I wanted to know what Geralt could have done, including some choices in witcher 1. I read only the Last Wish so I'd like to read the opinions of people who read other books, thanks anyway for the link ^^

[Kallelinski]

I read all books and i actually tried to play as Geralt and not as me, i really like his character and didn't want to force him to do things, i think he didn't want to.

http://en.thewitcher...post__p__936409

Of course this is absolutely subjective, more or less every decision in the games is within the book lore, there are only few things, which Geralt wouldn't just do, e.g. killing life forms with any kind of intelligence (e.g. a Troll).

For Witcher 1 is the general rule to be neutral in every matter, Geralt dislikes politics and doesn't want to meddle with it.

[FoggyFishburne]

I'm not really interested in playing the game as Geralt. Considering he lost his memory, it's kind of a fresh start for players to leave their own mark on the world. Haven't read the books myself, though some day I will. I do find it really awesome how all my decisions really reinforce that this is who Geralt was before the amnesia. He seems to have been a really good guy. I'm only acting ethically, after my own instinct and I get praised for it. I'm not alone in that regard, I'm aware of it but I'm still kinda happy about it.

One of the coolest moments happened when I was reading up on my journal, after I've just completed the Vampire brother mission in TW1. I obviously helped the vampires and told the knight to go to hell. The journal said afterwards "I'm not such a good witcher". That really had an impact on me. Because, no. I wasn't being a good witcher. But I was a good human being. I didn't just blindly follow a rigid doctrine, ignoring common sense or critical thinking just so I could be a "good" witcher.

Though, after the conversation with Zoltan about Witchers, it's pretty obvious the game was hinting that the world had changed, and it was up to you to adapt. Not just sit idly on the fence and let the world go on without you. Great conversation by the way, it's not where you come from or where you're headed that determines if you're evil but rather your character and intent. Real basic and common sense shit, I know, but it's framed so well. I just love it. Is it your physical appearance or your soul that determines whether or not you're a monster. If the later, then Witchers should be hunting men more than beasts.

Damn, Sapkowski knows his stuff. He's really created a dynamic, rich and grey world where ethics and morality is questioned every second. I just love it. Thanks RED for mirroring that in your games!

[guipit]

I was replaying W2 and decided to kill the Trolls in Chapter 2 Iorveth path seeing as there were a bunch human and elven remains in their lairs which meant they weren't tame like the regular troll in Flotsam. Adam Pangratt seemed like the better choice since Geralt can't really expect Trolls to take Vergens side.

but then again I didn't check Flotsam's troll is he ate humans or not.

[Glaroug]

The first time I played I did like Foggy, what I thought was right. It was spectacular. I remember aiding Sigfried in the forest with the Elves. The guy helped me kill the cockatrice. A favor for a favor. Not to mention, he's a great human being. I did what felt natural and found myself in the Order. I felt terrible when I saw the outcome in Vizima, but I did what I thought was right. In TW2, Iorveth's path felt natural. Read the books and played again. I tried "being" books Geralt. That was a headache, so I'm back to what feels right. RED says I'm Geralt and that's good enough for me. I'm Glaroug in Geralt's boots so to speak, embracing the "roleplaying" concept

A similar instance comes to mind when I first played Mass Effect. I tried my hardest to be purely "Paragon" like a goody-two-shoes, even when the "renegade" path options felt natural. To hell with artificial guidelines [img]http://en.thewitcher.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/;)/>.gif[/img].




Speaking of decisions, I butchered the Succubus yesterday. That quest never sits well with me. Depends on the day I guess, but its hard to not think she'd wouldn't drive the region into becoming murderous amateur poets.

[guipit]

Glaroug said:

I butchered the Succubus yesterday. ›››

I don't think a lot of people would do what Eleyas did. It would've happened to anyone who experiences unrequited love it just so happened that it was a succubus he fell in love with.

Replace succubus with whore and the story still works. Is it the whore's fault? No.

[Random drowner]

guipit said:

I was replaying W2 and decided to kill the Trolls in Chapter 2 Iorveth path seeing as there were a bunch human and elven remains in their lairs which meant they weren't tame like the regular troll in Flotsam. Adam Pangratt seemed like the better choice since Geralt can't really expect Trolls to take Vergens side.

but then again I didn't check Flotsam's troll is he ate humans or not. ›››

Not enough evidence. Trolls do have a history of sometimes eating elves and humans but there is no evidence I know of that they made the kills.

The she-troll likely got the elves (for the elf and onion soup) from the site where the kingslayers massacred the elves.

[guipit]

Random drowner said:

Not enough evidence. Trolls do have a history of sometimes eating elves and humans but there is no evidence I know of that they made the kills.

The she-troll likely got the elves (for the elf and onion soup) from the site where the kingslayers massacred the elves. ›››

but there were sooo many bones and shit so they must eat them regularly. If they just happen to find their bodies killed Harpies,it'd still be immoral to eat them because what about the relatives of the victims who want the bodies back.

They don't really do anything for Vergen anyway so why keep them.

I didn't want to kill mercenaries that could prove useful to Saskia as well.

[Random drowner]

guipit said:

but there were sooo many bones and shit so they must eat them regularly. If they just happen to find their bodies killed Harpies,it'd still be immoral to eat them because what about the relatives of the victims who want the bodies back.

They don't really do anything for Vergen anyway so why keep them.

I didn't want to kill mercenaries that could prove useful to Saskia as well. ›››

I'm just saying that it hardly warrants killing them. I wish there was an option to investigate this issue and

1) If they do attack and ambush people in order to eat them:

1A: Warn them to stop immediately or die. There is plenty of other other stuff to eat.

1B: Say that you can not allow them to live and attack

2)If they are just eating those who are already dead.

2A: That it is OK as long as they do not kill anyone. Natural order of things and all that, just be careful.

2B: Tell them to immediately switch their diet and warn them of the consequences of eating people, even if they are already dead, as it might cause conflicts with people if they find out.

[Glaroug]

Quote

I don't think a lot of people would do what Eleyas did. It would've happened to anyone who experiences unrequited love it just so happened that it was a succubus he fell in love with.

Replace succubus with whore and the story still works. Is it the whore's fault? No.

An excellent argument to be sure. It strongly reminds me of the vampire brothel quest Foggy mentioned. It just depends on the day and how I'm playing Geralt this time. I'll never feel "great" about my decision and I'll always put it off until the last. Sometimes I'm wimp and just don't do them .

Same thing goes for sex. Mottle is a good example. Sometimes it just feels like it "cheapens" the rescue. Ah, well. Sometimes you just have to figure like with Carmen's girls in the TW1. A blacksmith would forge me a sword, a wizard and enchanted item, an alchemist, a potion. We all h ave our "own" brand of rewards

[guipit]

Random drowner said:

I'm just saying that it hardly warrants killing them. I wish there was an option to investigate this issue and ›››

Even the drunkard dwarf who tells the story says they eat live humans or insinuates it and also there's a pool of red stuff around the trolls lair wtf is that shit blood? We'll never really know.

[SnakeSHN]

The witcher has a perfect amount of choices. One game that really bothered me with its "moral choices" was Oblivion 4 and its quest "Origin of the Grey Prince" ... once you told him he was half vampire you had only one choice left i.e. kill him in the areana , because he wants you to kill him.

And so i had skip that mission.