Definitely, but even if you give Iorveth his sword, you can still go with Roche for Chapter 2.

OMG, I was like, yeah, she totally date-raped Geralt!!!

More on your other points, Triss might have been on the lodge when they made the decision to blow up the battlefield. As to whether it's a war crime or more of a lesser evil to prevent further chaos, is rather inconclusive. To stop a war by using extreme force, I believed we have seen a prominent real world example before.

Whether the lodge had sinister purposes, you might be right. To claim that the lodge had sinister purposes based on the fact that they arranged to assassinate Demawend is inconclusive at best. For one, Demawend was a weak king at that point and he was detrimental to the progress and development to the kingdom. As to "very arguably Foltest's [assassination] as well", both Sile and Letho clearly stated that assassinating Foltest had nothing to do with the Lodge.

To add some juicy BBQ sauce to that, both Phillipa and Sile claimed that Triss was not privy to a lot of the Lodge's dealings.

As to the accusation that she has bedded Geralt and used his affection so that she can further her goals, I haven't seen any concrete proof to back that up both from you and from the game.

Based on all the above, I say that you sweeping statement that Triss is false, that she doesn't have genuine feelings toward Geralt, that she deserved getting tortured and being exposed to the risk of being raped/killed for what she has done, to be inconclusive at best.

You may not like the term, but that is in fact what Triss has done. She has used Geralt's amnesia to get into bed with him when that otherwise would not have happened and took advantage of his condition to stay there. That's means Geralt does not have informed consent...and that's rape. It's pretty damned conclusive to me. King Henselt executed his sorceress for it, and NO ONE (no other king or any other mage) said "boo". The lodge of sorcessess wantenly and cruelly slaughtered men on both sides, and to put icing on the cake tried to get King Henselt to sent the rest of his army into a deathzone abrogating her responsibility to aid King Henselt. A war crime is exactly what it is....and done at the behest of a rather nasty illuminati of which Triss is clearly a member (you see her as part of the council that gives the OK). If you take Roche's path, Sile is fingered for Forselt's assassination too. Phillipa enslaves another being by treachery, and in Witcher I, Phillipa tells Triss to keep Geralt on her leash and not let him get an inkling as to what's up. Seems sinster enough to me. Sure so Geralt would trust her. I wouldn't trust either to tell me the sky was blue unless it suited their best interests...so why do you? I strongly disagree. I think the sorceresses get what's coming to them and while the proof isn't ironclad, you don't need ironclad evidence to realize that the sorceresses are up to no good. I think what King Radovid did to Phillpa was justified (and the same with Letha to Sile).

-Polaris

Baloney. Geralt knew who Triss was and fell for her hard when they were at Kaer Morhen in TW1. Geralt knew about Yennefer by the time they fell into the elven baths. His amnesia has always been a bit selective. This was nothing like a date rape. Your use of that term is merely for the purpose of flamebait.

The worst that can be said is that there might be a catfight that will make Geralt want to be temporarily elsewhere when they do catch up to Yennefer.

No, you're just using "rape" to try to get people to respond angrily. That's flamebait.

Since Geralt has a well-established reputation of bedding sorceresses, it would be preposterous to call Triss's non-deceit some kind of "date rape", unless you don't mean to stick to the established fiction (canon or games) at all but rather mean to inflame. I think you mean the latter. Psia krew.

Darling, I suggest you talk to whatever girl dumped you and made you so bitter instead of writing nonsense here.

rape
verb /rāp/
Force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them.

Geralt was more than happy to oblige and it's not like she was the only girl he ever slept with. So please, just stop.

Instead of psychoanlyzing me over the internet (never a wise move), try reading what I am saying. Geralt because of his amnesia is not able to give informed consent! That makes it effectively rape by your own definition. You get a girl drunk and have sex with her because she was too drunk to realize what went on, then you can be convicted of rape (at least in the US) even if she might have 'slurred' yes. Informed consent wasn't possible.

Same here. Triss is USING Geralt's amnesia and knowledge he doesn't yet remember in order to seduce him. By modern standards, it seems much like a form of "date rape" to me.

-Polaris
Since I have never read the books, "the established lore" means nothing to me. What Triss did is more than just getting Geralt in bed with her. Geralt beds just about anything in a skirt (esp in Witcher 1). What Triss tries to do (with Phillipa's express consent and direction I might add...seee the cut scene just before act 2 in Witcher 1) is make Geralt FALL IN LOVE with her by using his Amnesia against him. Geralt because of his condition is not able to make an informed consent (which surely would be different if he remembered Yenefer).

So I think my criticism of Triss while harsh is fair. I will agree that "rape" is probably too hard a term with all the negative baggage it has, but it is the one that legally fits. Triss is seducing Geralt while Geralt is not able to give full consent.

-Polaris

To put it in the most general term, the Lodge of Sorceresses approved an act of greater violence (the spell) to suppress another act of violence (war). If you see the side with the greater firepower as war criminals, so be it.

To add to the uncertainty, I'm not sure whether the situation would have been better if the spell was not casted. The power structure of the Northern Kingdoms will change, there'll be turmoil in Aedirn, and if the war had dragged on there might have been a higher casualty on both sides. Those consideration gave me pause, rather than judging Sabrina and the lodge's action based on the immediate consequences.

It's pretty normal for a leader to execute his subordinates for failing him. It doesn't necessarily mean the latter is a "war criminal". None of the sorcerers criticized Henselt for it (or in your succinctly worded "boo") because they have already known that this is one of the possible consequences when Sabrina told them about her plans. As to the kings, some are probably happy that she executed Sabrina (his advisor) which in their eyes would weaken Henselt -> good for them. More importantly, I supposed no king would oppose to another king executing a subordinate for failing the latter and even slaughtering the latter's troops.

However, if you are willing to apply "war crime" in the stricter sense, i.e. to label everyone who has at one point in time been involved in a committee that approved the use of violence that caused great amounts of casualty, then I agree that Triss is a "war criminal". The flaw with that is, by the same logic, both Roche and Iorveth would be more of a "war criminal" than Triss, for they have murdered countless innocents throughout the years. So yeah, both of them don't deserve Geralt's help at all. King Foltest ordered the assault on La Valettes, causing "rape and pillaging" and the killing of civillians, so he's a "war criminal" too. So the whole game consist of Geralt constantly siding with "war criminals".

Glad you stopped harping on Demawend's assassination. As to "Sile is fingered for [Foltest's] assassination]", see answer below from my post that you seemed to be replying to

The revelation might have eluded you but it happens later than the false accusation that you mentioned. Phillipa definitely seemed very ambitious for power (as Cynthia has said), does that prove the lodge (who doesn't solely consist of Phillipa) is sinister? Let me rephrase what you are saying: Triss is sinister because she is involved in an organization which has "sinister" members (Phillipa and Sile).

I am not convinced. For one, you are making a generalization based on specific cases. Another thing, you are mistaking "secretive" and "ambitious" with "sinister" (definition: threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble). By your logic, all the kings are "sinister" because they plot and they keep secrets, just like the sorceresses. Heck, even Iorveth and Roche have their own agenda. Geralt is surrounded by "sinister" people.

I was trying to think of some complicated argument but one dawned upon me. If what you claim is true (and it probably is), how do you know that it doesn't suit their best interests to tell the truth at both times?

While we all hate sorceresses, that doesn't mean that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is void. Not sure why you are bringing up Phillipa and Sile when we are discussing about whether Triss deserved to be saved or not. Perhaps you are suggesting guilt by association (something you seemed inclined to do in your post). Phillipa and Sile being bad seeds does not prove Triss to be deserving of such incrimination/punishment. Just like how Geralt should not be persecuted solely because other witchers are assassin of kings.
It's not about the harshness of the word, it's about the applicability of such word in the context. While your example of drunk girl is correct, it does not explain why amnesia should be considered as inability to give informed consent. I am just going to admit my ignorance here and someone more knowledgeable with law to elucidate whether amnesia -> unable to make informed consent -> raped .

But that is beside the point. Assuming that Triss raped Geralt, and Geralt enjoyed it so much that he consented to getting raped by her multiple times after that (wrong on so many levels by the way but it's still rape because he still has amnesia), that still does not mean Triss should be punished by imprisonment / death / rape.

ok so pseudo rape and triss aside, i preferred the Roche side more - why?

because

1) Vergen gets INCREDIBLY dull to walk through, its a maze and even after 6hours playtime i still got lost trying to find a particular house , whereas the army camp and surroundings felt a lot more natural. More to the point, they were a lot less boring to look at than Vergen. I am no fan of stones, and no fan of dwarven stones.

2) There were a lot less harpies to fight, particularly.. there was no harpy blow up trap quest. Thank the heavens...and no Harpy dream crystal quest.. these were the quests i disliked most in the Iorveth playthrough.

3) The characters and npcs in chap 2 were not dwarfs and elves .... (yes, thats a plus)

But aside that, i for the first time noticed how the game can actually have 16 endings, so far i discovered 12 of which many seem to be sourced in your earliest decisions. Which is a good thing, 3rd playthrough awaits ;)

There is more to it than that. Watch that scene again. The Lodge of Sorceresses quite franky states that they are being asked to help in forbidden war magic (read weapons of mass destruction) in order to wipe out both sides and to betray King Helselt. Whatever you think about King Henselt (and my opinion of him is very low), it's a betrayal and the use of magic to create the mass casualties. It's true to use a modern anology that a person is just as dead from a bullet as from a nuclear bomb, but one is strictly forbidden as a weapon of mass destruction and the other is not. Same with the Sorceresses' magic. It's that sort of sheer arogance that I am objecting to. The situation may or may not have been better, but that is NOT UP TO THEM. That is up to the kings (of all the Northern Kingdoms) to decide. These sorceresses are taking it upon themselves using forbidden magic to boot (see above) to essentially play god. Henselt didn't just excecute her for failure. He executed her for using "Magic of Mass Destruction" (and the Lodge knew it was forbidden magic when they authorized it) in the act of betraying and slaughtering the king and troops that trusted her. I have zero sympathy for her. Iorveth is certainly a war criminal by any standard (as an aside so is Deathmolt). Roche is too although Roche's case needs to be considered against his duties as special forces commander, but yes Roche is an unlikable sadist and it shows. Geralt? Not so much. Do innocents die at Geralt's blade? Probably, but that's often unavoidable in war. Geralt at least tries (at least mine do) to avoid it if possible. Iorveth, Triss, and Roche don't even bother (or Deathmolt). In addition, how someone is killed does matter. Some ways are acceptable (being slashed to death with a sword) while others are not (mass magic). That's not so different from today. You've conceded the point w/r/t Demawend's assassination. The Lodge of Sorcessess (including Triss) were in on that up to their eyebrows. No excuses. Sleep with dogs and you get fleas. Triss is a co-member with Phillipa and Sile and does nothing to stop them. That makes her an accessory. Everytime I see the sorceresses gather and play god, see all members but Triss use vile magic (enslaving another with magic is vile), I'd say that "sinster" fits them to a tee. The problem is you can't know if they are telling the truth or not. You have to assume they aren't. Innocent until proven guilty only applies in a court of law....and a modern western one at that. There is more then enough to view all Sorceresses including Triss with deep suspicion since this isn't a court of law. Perhaps she shouldn't, but that doesn't mean I feel particularly sorry for her when it happens.

-Polaris

Good to see the debate continued while I was away...

@Polaris
I suggest you put your hate on the sorceresses and the Lodge aside at least once and save Triss. It might not change your views, but it will give you a more rounded perspective on some of her motivations.

I intend to because I am an inveterate completionist and I am curious myself.

-Polaris

As promised I went back to one of my Act 3 saves in my last game (Roche) and saved Triss rather than Princess Natalia (?--Foltest's Daughter at any rate), and the changes were illuminating. I will agree that saving Triss does seem to lead to the best outcome for the Northern Nations since the good magicians (Conclave) aren't destroyed with the bad and the North is at least somewhat unified against Nilfgard, and Nilfgard doesn't get it all their own way.

However, if anything the conversation I have with Triss pretty much confirms my negative view towards the Lodge of Sorceresses and Triss although Triss does at least (mostly) own to her involvement and does try to make things better in the end. I have even less sympathy for Sile and Phillipe (and I'd have done worse than simply gouge out Phillipa's eyes if I were Radovich).

-Polaris

Also, it's clearly described several times in the books, that Triss is "madly" in love with Geralt (she always chokes up a little when she is confronted again with the fact that Geralt really loves Yennefer and not her - before his memory loss at least). You can't really interpret it as an evil agenda, that she has more going on in her life than just being in love with Geralt (something I also deem very normal, especially given that Geralt is always traveling wherever). That complexity is part of what makes her into a good character in the first place. She's a lot more than just the hero's love interest.