[Massive spoilers - only read on if you have finished all paths]


Well after playing with both sides, I think that I prefer Iorveth's path. For one, it's good to meet up with old friends (Yarpen and his merry gang, to quote "Come give us a kiss") and drink for the sake of hanging out, and not to squeeze information (as in Roche's path). In general, you're with friends.

Another thing is the sense of achievement. You see, by siding with Iorveth, you effectively turn the tide of battles and helped in the achievement of a free and independent state (not to mention with the alliance of human-elf-dwarf -> big deal) in Pontar Valley. Further on, you solve the mystery of the dragon and there is hope that Vergen might still stand strong by the end.

Let's examine Roche's path. He schemes against King Henselt for years, fails and gets his best men massacred (btw why the heck do all those hanging corpses look alike?). As to how successful his scheming went, not much is achieved - Henselt takes control of Vergen and hence Saskia's cause is lost. If you let Roche kill Henselt, it severely undermines the stability of Kaedwen, probably one of the strongest kingdoms in the North, weakening a future alliance (if it arises) against the Nilfgaardians -> "justice" is served, but not the greater good. At least, it's not a lesser evil to me.

Moving on to Act 3, Roche saves Foltest's heir. Whether he marries her to Radovid or whether he puts her under Natalis' care, the future of Temeria remains uncertain - Radovid and Henselt would probably carve up Temeria. So I'm not sure if preserving the heir would necessarily do much good at this point, plus, it is yet to see how politically inclined Anais would be in the future.

So to judge both paths by merits of how substantial your achievement is. For me, Iorveth's path wins hands down. His plans actually work and you don't have to slaughter an entire camp of soldiers to achieve it.

Iorveth's path is a lot of fun. Everything's better with foulmouthed drunken dwarves :) The Act 2 side quests are entertaining, and Act 3 feels "right" when you have to sneak into Loc Muinne where you're about as welcome as a skunk at a garden party.

For once, Geralt gets to work for what seems to be a "greater good" instead of a "lesser evil" by throwing his considerable skills into the fight for Upper Aedirn. But for all that, it feels sort of "pat". Upper Aedirn is declared free, and so it is. Iorveth's and Saskia's plans work out without the intrigues or anarchy or interference by grasping neighbors and rivals. It's ultimately a little too scripted.

Roche's path is not this kind of light entertainment. There are companions with heavy baggage (Roche and Ves both), conspiracy, depravity, foul play, and revenge from start to finish. There are decisions where there is no clear good, and any one could inflict misery on a person or a nation. In short, it is just what a Witcher game should be. You may not like it. It may not make you feel good about much of anything. But you should play it.

I agree with all of this :P I actually think that new players should take Roches path first because in my 2nd play though it was very cool to learn new views on the plot. I prefer Iorveths path because I find the characters more likeable, better side-quests and Vergen overall than a military camp.
One thing that bothers me is that you have to choose between saving Triss yourself and saving Saskia. I think it's one of the best choices they present.

1.) All new players should play the game and choose which path based on what they have seen and experienced and make that decision for themselves. The way the game was meant to be played.

2.) As someone who gets attached to characters and the story of games, I prefer Iorveth's path. Roche is such a mindless military drone that I have a hard time sympathizing with him. Iorveth on the other hand, while he sure goes a bit too far alot of times, I get him and have a bit more respect for him as well as his cause. This is very apparent when you get to Chapter 2 and see him helping out Saskia and her quest for a free-state. Plus, I cared alot more about Triss and getting my memory back than I did about clearing my name.

I felt like saving Triss is a troll path - she gets saved no matter what you choose, but of course, you don't know that. Some may argue you learn about the Lodge that way, but it's just as likely that she would've told Geralt about the Lodge after they leave Loc Muinne with Iorveth :P

It feels more personal. I felt 'at home' in Vergen, helping friends and allies. Military camp felt dead to me, I was there just to run around and do stuff for a king - more of the same Geralt hated when he worked for Foltest.

I know right? I can't believe how much juicy plot I missed just because I chose to save Triss.

Mhm. My thoughts went something like: Yay, saving my girl Triss! --> Wow, I'm so glad she's okay, phew. --> IORVETH WTH HAPPENED TO YOU D: --> DDDD: --> Oh, Letho again :\

--> WHERE DID I PUT MY CHOICES SAVEGAME

and then my brain got blown by awesome :D

Though i really didn't enjoy the first half of Chapter 2 with Roche, i truely could not see my neutral Geralt whom just wanted to clear his name and settle down with Triss siding with the Scoiatel. They tried to kill him twice. Not to mention hightailing off with Iorveth is pretty much the complete opposite of what you'd want to do when wanting to clear your name.

In every way, siding with Iorveth is taking a risk. At least you know you're safe with the Blue Stripes, as they need Geralt, while the Iorveth could be planning anything.

The choice would've been much better if they left it more ambiguous. The choice itself was basically "Side with the men who are trying to catch the KS (Same as Geralt)" and "Side with an elven radical (that's all he seems to be at this point in the game) whom wishes to assist a rebelion, AND THEN maybe get the KS)"

Hrm... you really have no idea how much more she suffers if you don't go to save her. Letho gets her out, sure, but the mere thought of more torture (and worst of all: rape) happening to her is enough for me to always pick Triss unless I'm on an experimental run. Besides, saving Triss is this game's version of a 'neutral path,' seeing how you're simply tossing the politics aside to rescue your friend (or lover, depending on your choice), and the neutral path always feels 'most right' to me in these games. I think you're also forgetting another thing; the way the political story ends in TW2 varies more than you think, depending on if you get Triss to join the deliberations or not. As you may recall, not saving her means Nilfgaard will use Letho and Triss' false testimonies to accuse all the sorceresses of being behind the kingslayers - the journal entry later specifies that this results in one of the worst witch hunts in history. If you instead go flailing around the Nilfgaardian camp, effectively destroying most of their military force present in Loc Muinne (including the big-wigs Shilard and Renuald), you are actively foiling these plans, and they are no longer able to manipulate and deceive during the 'peace talks.' Instead, Triss can testify, and she will accuse only Síle (of those present) of being behind the assassinations. Radovid confirms this immediately by ordering only her arrested, rather than what he says if you let Shilard have his way: 'Arrest them all!'

So you see, while we may not see the results of how we chose to end TW2 until CDPR releases a continuation of the story, the choice of saving Triss or not still has a major impact on how the political situation develops. Besides, apart from experimental runs (that I of course enjoy as well), how could I live with not letting Geralt choose his long-time friend/lover, over some sort of political scheme? While we may know that she survives no matter what, Geralt does not; if Geralt chooses Saskia or Anais over Triss, he is actively making a choice that, for all he knows, will result in Triss being mutilated and/or executed (he even alludes to that while you're trying to make your decision). To have him still make the choice to prioritize some sort of political action (i.e. make the attempt to lift Saskia's curse, or to save Anais from Dethmold), is absolutely heartbreaking to me. :(

Sorry for derailing the topic a bit.

Kindo, I agree with your analysis...

Just to add, when you save Triss, you get another choice to kill the dragon / Saskia or leave her be. Then, during the Epilogue, you get Philippa's dagger off a soldier you kill. The devs must have some reason for introducing this item at this point in the game, after the opportunity to use it.

I suspect the story with the dragon / Saskia is not over, and she will appear in future content.

Don't worry about derailing, I love your posts :D

Everything you said is true and of course, I didn't think twice about saving Triss on my first play-through (where I made the most 'natural' choices) - it's something Geralt would do. Hell, it's something pretty much anyone would do. I think the decision is harder on Roche's path - little girl over your best friend/lover, I'll never not be torn about it.

Is it just my memory, but doesn't Triss say that soldiers started hunting sorceresses anyway, raping them and murdering, after you kill the dragon? While on Philippa path you get to save two sorceresses. I'm not saying this matters on a grander scheme of things, just something I remembered when you mentioned sorceresses. Chaos breaks out no matter what path you choose, but what would a Witcher game be without chaos and regret over choices?

That said, I guess I tend to try to save characters I like (which means, I support their views and goals) instead of looking at a bigger picture. For better or for worse. I'm glad we have forums to discuss all the different bits and pieces of the game.

Yeah, definitely. The whole Anais, successor of Temeria story is incredibly fascinating, and personally my favourite (I used to prefer Saskia before). I can't wait to see what becomes of her; I loved it when Roche told you that she finally started talking, and that she rejected a doll from Natalis, asking for a sword instead. So awesome! I do love that CDPR doesn't let you have it both ways; that tough choices must be made!

Yeah, after the dragon attacks, chaos ensues in Loc Muinne, and that leads to all sorts of 'unofficial' villainy; I blame the Order for most of it, as they probably were only waiting for an excuse to start raping and killing sorceresses. I'm a bit disappointed that this sort of behaviour hasn't been denounced, even if Siegfried is the Grand Master. I would assume his virtuous nature would at least prevent such despicable acts from taking place. At least if he's present, as he is here. But no... even if Siegfried is there, his damnable Order of knights violate innocents. :'(

Same here. I can't think entirely practically about matters, disconnecting myself, as it were. There are many reasons I can think of that will cause Saskia's crusade to fail, even if Vergen still stands free at the end, and her curse has been lifted; but gosh darnit! I'd rather die trying! :D

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I do agree that the consequences of saving Triss are more easily missed, in fact it might heavily impact what happens in a sequel/expansion.

And also, I agree that the canon path is to save Triss.

I can just hear Triss teeing off on him now,

"What, you think I can't take care of myself? You let Roche hand that little girl over to the King of Redania, just so you could be my knight in shining armor? I got news for you, lover. You're already my knight in shining armor. You don't need to go around proving it. The Geralt I love stands up for the defenseless."