It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
The Witcher 2Iorveth VS Roche: Which path do you prefer? [SPOILERS](72 posts)(72 posts)
(72 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
cjrgreen: ...
Ultimately the point of Geralt saving Triss is not to improve/change Triss' opinion of him. The thing is, Geralt would be concerned about the well-being/safety of Triss (read: getting her eyes gouged out / rape / flogged / killed (!!!) etc.). Remember without the fore-knowledge that Letho would save her, there's no idea what the Nilfs would have done to her.

Even if Triss said what you assumed that she would say, I can only imagine a respond from Geralt - a shrug.
Post edited July 20, 2011 by vAddicatedGamer
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
cjrgreen: ...
avatar
vAddicatedGamer: Ultimately the point of Geralt saving Triss is not to improve/change Triss' opinion of him. The thing is, Geralt would be concerned about the well-being of Triss (read: getting her eyes gouged out / rape / flogged etc.).

Even if Triss said what you assumed that she would say, I can only imagine a respond from Geralt - a shrug.
There's a misconception I think underlies much of the Roche-path discussion, which is that deciding to save Anais is solely or mostly a political decision. To me it is incidentally a political decision, but essentially a question of whether Geralt acts on behalf of a child in danger.

And you're right:

Triss: ...
Geralt: [shrugs] Mhm.
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
cjrgreen: ...
While I agree with you that Geralt would prioritize Anais the child over Anais the political prisoner, we (esp. those among us who have gone through multiple playthrough) often forget that Geralt didn't know the fate of Triss at this point - for all he knows, she might be in mortal danger and no one else is going to save her. Also, note that he has been trying to find/rescue her for more than half of the game.

To put it in your wording, it is a question of whether Geralt chooses a child (albeit somewhat a stranger) in danger , or chooses a companion/lover/friend in danger, not to mention an important helper in tracking down Yennefer.

I don't know about you, but if I were in Geralt's shoes, I would at least rescue Triss first before thinking about rescuing Anais.
Post edited July 20, 2011 by vAddicatedGamer
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
cjrgreen: ...
avatar
vAddicatedGamer: While I agree with you that Geralt would prioritize Anais the child over Anais the political prisoner, we (esp. those among us who have gone through multiple playthrough) often forget that Geralt didn't know the fate of Triss at this point - for all he knows, she might be in mortal danger and no one else is going to save her. Also, note that he has been trying to find/rescue her for more than half of the game.

To put it in your wording, it is a question of whether Geralt chooses a child (albeit somewhat a stranger) in danger , or chooses a companion/lover/friend in danger, not to mention an important helper in tracking down Yennefer.

I don't know about you, but if I were in Geralt's shoes, I would at least rescue Triss first before thinking about rescuing Anais.
I'm actually more interested in Triss's possible reaction to Geralt's decision, and that's why I framed it the way I did.

In this situation, Geralt can't make a choice that is wrong in anybody except Triss's eyes (except either do nothing or get himself killed). But Triss has her own perspective, and I think she would be more understanding of why Geralt didn't come for her than of why he left a child to her fate.
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
cjrgreen: ...
Ok, since you put it that way, let's move on to Triss' shoes. Her current situation prior to rescue: locked up by the Nilfgaardians. We're not sure how the Nilfs interrogated her (from the accounts of others, the Nilfs seemed to have a way with extracting information), all we see (if we choose to save her) is that she has bruises, blood marks, and signs of being whipped.

I'm not convinced that Triss would be as understanding as you put it. Here's why:
a) I don't know what happened in the Battle of Sodden Hill, but apparently she has been severely injured and even disfigured by the Nilfs, and she sounded traumatized when she recounted it in the book, Blood of Elves. So to have fallen into the hands of Nilfs again, rendered helpless, and possibly to never see daylight again, I can't imagine the horror that she might have felt.
b) Triss has always been somewhat insecure about Geralt's feelings toward her. For one, she felt like she betrayed Yennefer. If she learnt that Geralt chose a child stranger (one that is weaker than her although both are equally helpless in their confines if you think about it) instead of herself, I'm not sure if she would be that open-minded about it.
c) If Triss found out what Radovid did to Phillipa, I'm not sure if she would be that "understanding" that he didn't come earlier.
d) Let's say Geralt decides to save Anais. Triss could have been killed/raped by the crazed mob, or more likely brought back to Nilfgaard (!!!). Up until that point, no one (not even Triss) would even come close to expect that Letho would save her. I'm not sure Triss would be so understanding when she could have been in deep shit were it not for Letho.

I think a lot of us are taking for granted that Triss gets saved no matter what Geralt chooses - it's ok, she comes out of the whole mess alive anyway, right?

"In this situation, Geralt can't make a choice that is wrong in anybody except Triss's eyes". If say Zoltan or Dandy knew that Geralt went to rescue Anais and left Triss to her own fate, I'm sure they would be very unhappy / repulsed by the idea.
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
vAddicatedGamer: I think a lot of us are taking for granted that Triss gets saved no matter what Geralt chooses - it's ok, she comes out of the whole mess alive anyway, right?
Depends on what are we discussing. Is saving Triss what Geralt would do? Hell yes, he'd say plough the child, plough the sorceress, I'm saving Triss - and that is exactly what the majority of players did on their first play-through. It's a natural reaction, especially after Geralt spends the entire game looking for her. Why abandon her now that we finally got the chance to see/save her?

However, if we talk as players who know what happens, other paths can make just as much sense depending on how we want to turn the situation. Because, that's right, Triss comes out of it alive anyway.
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
dnna: Depends on what are we discussing. Is saving Triss what Geralt would do? Hell yes, he'd say plough the child, plough the sorceress, I'm saving Triss - and that is exactly what the majority of players did on their first play-through. It's a natural reaction, especially after Geralt spends the entire game looking for her. Why abandon her now that we finally got the chance to see/save her?

However, if we talk as players who know what happens, other paths can make just as much sense depending on how we want to turn the situation. Because, that's right, Triss comes out of it alive anyway.
Well you are right. I'm just using this line and the other points to explain why I think Triss won't be understanding when she finds out that Geralt left her to her own fate for a child that he barely knows.
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
vAddicatedGamer: Well you are right. I'm just using this line and the other points to explain why I think Triss won't be understanding when she finds out that Geralt left her to her own fate for a child that he barely knows.
Yeah, I agree. Although she does seem to forgive him a lot - maybe a bit too much. It will be interesting to see how the situation develops. Saving all my ending options, that's for sure x)
Posted July 21, 2011
I've played through Witcher 2 three times now (twice Iorveth and once Roche) and I have yet to rescue Triss. I admit I haven't read the books so my perspective might be different, but based on what we learn in the game, and in Witcher I, it's becoming increasing clear to my Geralts that Triss is being dishonest or at least far less than honest with him and telling him far less than she knows. My Geralts also get the idea that all the sorceresses (including Triss) seem only out to use him and bed him...and given that he's discovering that he was in love with Yenefer and Triss never bothered to mention it......I just don't see that going down well.

As such, I tend to think that Triss gets what's coming to her. Play with political fire and get burned. My personal inclination (and the path I am most comfortable with) is Iorweth ultimately saving Saskia and letting Letho go. On the Roche side it's saving the young princess (who is as much a victim as anyone) and making her Queen of Termeria...and having Roche keep a watchful eye on her welfare. Otherwise, I think Phillipa (getting her eyes get gouged out) and (edit)Sheala(/edit) (and I let the teleport kill her) and yes Triss get pretty much what they deserve.

-Polaris
Post edited July 21, 2011 by IanPolaris
Posted July 21, 2011
avatar
IanPolaris: ... it's becoming increasing clear to my Geralts that Triss is being dishonest or at least far less than honest with him and telling him far less than she knows. My Geralts also get the idea that all the sorceresses (including Triss) seem only out to use him and bed him...
Almost everyone Geralt meets is dodgy, have hidden agendas, and uses him for their own ends... Triss is far from the worst of the lot. Besides, he needs her help to get his memory back - this is pretty big deal if you have amnesia.

Yes, she plays at politics, and does suffer some grief for doing so. However, she does try to sort things and explains a lot to Geralt if you save her. So, I do not agree that she should get more hurt for her involvement in this.

Regarding Saskia...
If you save Triss and choose not kill the dragon / Saskia at the end of the battle, Saskia lives. Also you find Philippa's dagger later, so the Saskia story seems like it will continue on in some form.
Posted July 21, 2011
avatar
bri193: Almost everyone Geralt meets is dodgy, have hidden agendas, and uses him for their own ends... Triss is far from the worst of the lot. Besides, he needs her help to get his memory back - this is pretty big deal if you have amnesia.
Except Triss is lying about what she knows so she can bed Geralt and use his "love" to further the ends of a very illuminati-like cabal. I can not erase the Scene II cut-scene from Witcher I from my mind. To me that pretty much damns all sorceresses. If that wasn't enough, the entire lodge INCLUDING TRISS (she is there if you pay attention) not only permit but advocate and assist Henselt's sorceress (who fully deserved to be burned at the stake for what she did) in War Crimes against both armies again for the Lodge's own hidden (and IMO sinister) purposes.

Yes, she plays at politics, and does suffer some grief for doing so. However, she does try to sort things and explains a lot to Geralt if you save her. So, I do not agree that she should get more hurt for her involvement in this.

Regarding Saskia...
If you save Triss and choose not kill the dragon / Saskia at the end of the battle, Saskia lives. Also you find Philippa's dagger later, so the Saskia story seems like it will continue on in some form.
I will have to save her one time to see if her "explainations" can ever match the evil that her sisters do. Frankly I doubt it. I am still of the opinion based on the eviendence I see in both games (and Triss is a full participant) that the sorceresses get pretty much what they deserve if you don't take the "save Triss" route, ie. extermination.

-Polaris
Posted July 21, 2011
avatar
IanPolaris: Except Triss is lying about what she knows so she can bed Geralt and use his "love" to further the ends of a very illuminati-like cabal.
That's a bit harsh :)

Besides, if you save her she pretty much opens up and explains everything. Just because she doesn't tell you absolutely everything up-front doesn't mean she's sworn absolute allegiance to the lodge.

After all, she's pretty much cared about Geralt forever and a half and never really had a chance to pursue that. Then boom, an opportunity arrives when Geralt gets amnesia. Don't think that selectively sharing facts and becoming romantically involved with him is really indicative of a dark, sinister plan, given those circumstances. I'd say it's more like unexpectedly living out something she wanted but never expected, and then trying to extend the amount of time she could experience that.
Posted July 21, 2011
avatar
IanPolaris: Except Triss is lying about what she knows so she can bed Geralt and use his "love" to further the ends of a very illuminati-like cabal.
avatar
227: That's a bit harsh :)
Is it? It seems to me (look at the chapter 2 cutscene in Witcher again) that this is pretty much exactly what Triss is guilty of. Furthermore, later on Geralt discovers (remembers) it's Yenefer not Triss that he loves....and Triss knew that perfectly well and said nothing.

Besides, if you save her she pretty much opens up and explains everything. Just because she doesn't tell you absolutely everything up-front doesn't mean she's sworn absolute allegiance to the lodge.
Does she? We know (we see it reenacted by spirits that don't lie) that Triss took part in War Crimes against King Henselt's and King Demoved's troops, and we know that Phillpi is in up to her eyebrows in colluding with Sheala who DID order Demoved's murder at the very least (and very arguably Foltest's as well). Yes Triss complains about the later but that seems pretty weak sauce to me.

After all, she's pretty much cared about Geralt forever and a half and never really had a chance to pursue that. Then boom, an opportunity arrives when Geralt gets amnesia. Don't think that selectively sharing facts and becoming romantically involved with him is really indicative of a dark, sinister plan, given those circumstances. I'd say it's more like unexpectedly living out something she wanted but never expected, and then trying to extend the amount of time she could experience that.
She beds a man without his full consent based on false pretenses and thus wilhout full consent. That seems like a form of date-rape to me at the very least and I don't see why Geralt should react kindly to it once he figures it out.

-Polaris
Post edited July 21, 2011 by IanPolaris
Posted July 21, 2011
I enjoyed both sides,but I liked Iorveth's path more because the characters were more developed and that they touched on the story a bit more than on Roche's side.
Posted July 21, 2011
avatar
Darkhollow: I enjoyed both sides,but I liked Iorveth's path more because the characters were more developed and that they touched on the story a bit more than on Roche's side.
I'd agree with this. Also Iorveth's path seemed more developed (and IMHO was more developed) and felt more natural. NOT helping Iorveth (giving him his sword) when he is helping you entrap the Kingslayer feels unnatural.

-Polaris
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
The Witcher 2Iorveth VS Roche: Which path do you prefer? [SPOILERS](72 posts)(72 posts)
(72 posts)