Romance in The Witcher 1+2

+
In TW1 we had the third choice - to remain neutral. It pretty much amounts to supporting Triss, and on this path, when squirrels and knights killed off each other, Foltest turned to sorceresses for support. CDPR used this path as a default for their xbox 360 release. Remaining neutral, you still can help out the elves to escape the Vivaldi bank, by clearing the monsters for them.

There really is not a neutral choice in the bank quest: you aid the Order, or aid the Scoia'tael. Maybe aiding the Scoia'tael is the bloodless optioon, but it is nothing like neutral, and citizens of Vizima will hold it against you if you aid the Scoia'tael. And at Murky Waters, the choice of siding with the faction you refused to aid at the bank is still cut off.

Foltest himself tells you there is no room for neutrality. I agree with your observation that the "neutral" option actually results in you siding with Triss, the sorceresses, and eventually His Not-So-Clever-At-Dice-As-He-Thinks-He-Is Majesty.
 
Last edited:
There really is not a neutral choice in the bank quest: you aid the Order, or aid the Scoia'tael. Maybe aiding the Scoia'tael is the bloodless optioon, but it is nothing like neutral, and citizens of Vizima will hold it against you if you aid the Scoia'tael. And at Murky Waters, the choice of siding with the faction you refused to aid at the bank is still cut off.

Thanks, I did not know this. I always thought that we got to make a final choice in the Murky Waters. I know that when I help squirrels to get out of the bank, I can stay neutral later, which I practically always did. I sided with the order only once, and then I just went with them to the end.
 
Spoilers ahead:
It was very rewarding reading all the posts here. I just finished chapter 1 of the Witcher and while at first i tried to make my Geralt as neutral as possible/staying out of fights i found myself getting involved more than once (saving the waitress from getting raped, helping the dwarf who is apparently a friend and in the end choosing Abigail's side)

It seemed like the "Witcher" choice to just let the townspeople and Abigail settle their own problems but they seemed worse then her so i somehow ended up sleeping with her and then saved her. I'm going to start chapter 2 tonight i'm in a jail cell and this is as far as i got last time so i remember there is a choice to either join forces with this order of the flaming rose guy or go solo. Will most likely pick staying solo.
 
I don't think letting people lynch Abigail is a "witcher" choice. Not in the context of books Geralt for sure (the whole episode actually has a parallel in the books where Geralt prevents a lynch as well).
 
Last edited:
Spoilers incoming:
Thats good to know. Im on chapter 3 and so far my Geralt has slept with Triss, Shani, Abigail, the Dryad in the swamps, a prostitute in temple quarter, the blue eyed vizima prostitute, vampire sister threesome and Princess Adda. I already know he will sleep with Triss again because Alvin will be going to her. I find the flings to be funny and its been a nice change from the bio ware romances.

Now i'm worrying so much about my decisions because i really don't want to play this game more then once :p (its just the combat makes me really uninterested and is kind of hard for me so i will only be doing this once so i have a save for TW2). Can anyone crituque/compare their choices to mine at this point? This is all i can remember

-Went with Triss in the prologue.
- Saved my dwarf friend from racists in the outskirts
- Saved the waitress in the outskirts and escorted her home but she somehow died before we can hook up in the mill
- Let the elves take the crates as i thought that would be "keeping out of things" like Geralt always says. However in chapter 2 he commented about it saying he needs to "stay out of things". I thought that was what i was doing! :p
- Chose to help Abigail against the townspeople.
- Chose to fight the cockatrice myself
-Ended up figuring out Raymond had been killed by the bad mage guy and lured him into a trap
- Chose no side in the battle against order and squirrels. (actually i never spoke to either side which got me the neutral path which i would have chose anyway)
-Walked away and let Thaler be killed, i wanted to stay neutral.
- Will be giving Alvin to Triss
- Im doing the bank now and am siding with the Order but having trouble winning the fight :\ (wish there was an option to simply let them fight themselves!)

Also i did little things like helping the vampire whores in vizima (i might regret this), letting the talking ghoul go and then letting the elves flee while i saved the innocent humans in the crypt. Killed the old man cannibal in the swamps.

My overall goal is to have Geralt try and stay out of politics and major battles but get involved in smaller problems that he feels emotions for so i hope that makes sense.
 
The game is such that there are choices that are regrettable in hindsight (such as fighting the Frightener instead of defending the laboratory in the Prologue) but none that are invalid. It always comes down to what you believe Geralt would do. "Stay out of politics, but help people with their concerns" is a good plan, even if Geralt's ability to stay out of politics is limited by the events around him.

The choice involving Haren Brogg's crates is a strange one. I think "not getting involved" here means continuing to do what you were hired to do, by defending Haren's goods against all comers.
 
The choice involving Haren Brogg's crates is a strange one. I think "not getting involved" here means continuing to do what you were hired to do, by defending Haren's goods against all comers.

Actually, being a nice guy that I am who abhors all acts of violence :) first time I bought that elven b.s. about them needing these crates because they were poor, starving, and sick. Well, it turned out they needed a kind of specially designed anti-civil population arrows to shoot folks on the streets. So yes, staying neutral is to refuse, and when they attack, kill them.
Never made the same mistake again, and never trusted any damn squirrel again. At best I remained neutral, or just plain went on killing them given a chance. With them feeding people to the ghouls, and in general entertaining themselves with killing unarmed folk of Vizima, I wonder why anyone would side with them, given that we had an option to stay neutral and not to help the Order.
 
Last edited:
I don't think letting people lynch Abigail is a "witcher" choice. Not in the context of books Geralt for sure (the whole episode actually has a parallel in the books where Geralt prevents a lynch as well).
There was one moment in books, when Geralt also didn't let mad crowd and especially crazy priest to murder one girl. I know it was little bit different because of state of her mind, but I don't think he would let someone to murder someone else infront of his eyes.
And if we leave books, there is quite good hint about his opinion in game if you would choose 'wrong' option.
 
@BekahLynn

Go you own path, and with the decision you feel strongest about. As with choices and sacrifices. The thing is that all choices has consequences, as CDPR opt for, in true Sapkowski spirit, and the moral compass is forever grey.

I went my path, thinking a lot of what I'd wanted to have and to avoid, and acted as if it was my Geralt, as I was him. Making the choices it felt right, sane and sensible. To me it did. Posting my choices here I would probably get comments about my choices.

The devs were smart enough to make room for 'your own' personal kind of playstyle and path without creating a totally unacceptable Geralt in the process.

So go your own path, it's not wrong to do so, and I think every possible path in the games has a little Geralt in it.

In the books(I've read) he has fought both human knights challenging him to a duel and zealous Scoia'tael attacking him, while 'neutrality' and 'staying out of human affairs' are issues that are constantly present in the world.

EDIT:

Having Geralt lose his memories was a streak of genius by the devs!
 
Last edited:
There was one moment in books, when Geralt also didn't let mad crowd and especially crazy priest to murder one girl.

But that girl has been retarded. Literally. Geralt got angry about priest willing to sacrifice a slow witted girl to support his agenda. Abigail, she is completely different matter.
 
I know (and I said it in next sentence), but first thing: that priest was the same fanatic idiot like this Reverend and second thing: they both just shouted accusations - I know again, there is some difference and lines about cat and soup were more funny, but on the other hand, Geralt again wasn't convinced about her blame and after this there would not be proper trial, just murder of woman.

But if you don't like this example I can give you another: Stregobor.
Even when he knew, he was guilty, he didn't let them to murder him.
 
Last edited:
Geralt again wasn't convinced about her blame and after this there would not be proper trial, just murder of woman.
Then again, if Geralt do believe that accusations do hold truth (and the case of Abigail is far from conclusive, it is left to players's judgement) while not taking part in her punishment, he would not kill the villagres to defend murderess
But if you don't like this example I can give you another: Stregobor.
Even when he knew, he was guilty, he didn't let them to murder him.
Come on,
he just didn't let them kill innocents in order to lure Stregobor out of hiding
 
Last edited:
Then again, if Geralt do believe that accusations do hold truth (and the case of Abigail is far from conclusive, it is left to players's judgement) while not taking part in her punishment, he would not kill the villagres to defend murderess
I am not sure if I understand you, but you think that (letting them to do what they want) is better?
Those villagers is just mad crowd, nothing more. They attacked him voluntarely and he warned them sufficiently. There is nothing bad on his defence and defence of woman (not murderess - that is job for judger, not Geralt, not mad crowd).

Come on,
he just didn't let them kill innocents in order to lure Stregobor out of hiding
There was also different reason.
'Don't expect me to look on peacefully.'
This is what Geralt said before there showed up that problem with hostages. This was just reaction on her threats to Stregobor
 
Last edited:
Well, the choice with Abigail was pretty straightforward. There was no downside at all in letting her live, and quite a downside to killing her. It was rather "white knight" Geralt choice, very Bioware-like and conventional. Sure, unlike in Bioware games all of the villagers die, but it would make both choices crappy. But given that it is either Abigail who survives, or the Reverend, it is as obvious as it can be.

I would sure prefer this choice to be straight out of the Ethics text-book though experiments. Let's say, when in a case Geralt let Abigail to be burned, he chooses to sacrifice a less guilty (or, would be even better, completely innocent) person in order to save many stupid, cruel, and scared villagers. So she dies, the village lives through the night, the beast is dead, and they have a chance to be better persons. But in case he does not allow Abigail to be burned, the entire village goes after him, part of them is killed by the Beast and its hounds, the rest is massacred by Geralt, in the morning we get a picture of dozens of orphans crying over dead bodies of their parents, and the narration tells us that majority of these kids either will be killed or starve to death.
Here it will be a real fucking moral dilemma - to allow to sacrifice an innocent in order to save the villagers from their own stupidity, or to save the innocent person, kill every adult in the process, and let their children starve to death. Then we would have had real debates what is morally right thing to do, morally permissible, and so on. It would be very interesting. But as we know people want a power fantasy where they do not feel like shit does not matter what they choose (and this is exactly how real moral dilemmas work), and so I do not really expect to see real hard choices that make people loose sleep even in TW3. I doubt the games will ever go that far.
 
Let's say, when in a case Geralt let Abigail to be burned, he chooses to sacrifice a less guilty (or, would be even better, completely innocent) person in order to save many stupid, cruel, and scared villagers.
I always separated those two things.
1) choice about Abigail ... this problem is ended by Geralt's warning and his choice to leave with Abigail that village; villagers knew what will happend if they will attack him and if they really blame Abigail (because it was more like putting their own faults on Abigail rather than trying to find their own sins), they would get rid of her.

2) not-predictible consequences ... if there would be Renfri or Ciri to tell him, it could be considered as part of 1) and decision about it, but this is just another example of stupidity and guilt of villagers

And about 2): I feel no guilt for killing so many pople, I would rather save one innocent (especially) woman and kill dosens of criminals than let them murder one woman to save those idiots.
(BTW: I expect, there would be another beast created by them, within next year)

But in case he does not allow Abigail to be burned, the entire village goes after him, part of them is killed by the Beast and its hounds, the rest is massacred by Geralt, in the morning we get a picture of dozens of orphans crying over dead bodies of their parents, and the narration tells us that majority of these kids either will be killed or starve to death.
There is underlined what is important on this story and crossed out, what is just consequence of their own stupidity and thirst for blood.
 
Last edited:
You know, there is an episode in CSI TV Show, called Unfriendly Skies. I think it is in season 1 or 2. In that episode some guy on a plane got encephalitis, brain inflammation, and became deranged. People got scared out of their minds that he could took the entire plane down, and so they ganged up and strangled him. Well, the guy was innocent, there was no need to kill him, just to restrain would be enough, but fear has a tendency to turn usually adequate people into a raging mob. These people were not criminals, but ordinary folks with families. Being scared, they decided that it was always better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six, which is usually a sound judgement. Under the circumstances, if it is a choice either to let them kill the guy, or to kill them, and no other option available, I would go with letting them do it. It does not matter whether a victim is a man or woman, of what age, and so one. I just do not like when following some abstract principle results in a mound of dead bodies.

In TW1 case, yes, a bunch of people were criminals. But the rest of the village? They were just scared out of their minds, scared of the Beast, of Salamandra, and they picked Abigail as a scapegoat. Sure, it sucks to be Abigail, and there is nothing good in burning her, but if to compare a single corpse to a mound of corpses, I would say one death+one broken moral principle is a lesser evil than a mound of corpses, but the principle intact.

In any case, I doubt in TW3 we will have real moral dilemmas, where any decision feels bad. People do not usually take (perverted :) ) pleasure in contemplating such things, but simply get uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
You know, there is an episode in CSI TV Show, called Unfriendly Skies. I think it is in season 1 or 2. In that episode some guy on a plane got encephalitis, brain inflammation, and became deranged. People got scared out of their minds that he could took the entire plane down, and so they ganged up and strangled him. Well, the guy was innocent, there was no need to kill him, just to restrain would be enough, but fear has a tendency to turn usually adequate people into a raging mob.
I watched it now..thanks for this example.

But if that man was deranged, that would be another situation. Maybe excessive defence (not sure if that is right term) or something like that, but not act of crowd and their so-called court.

I think this would be little bit better video for this problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY
(I know it's quite long, but one important point is in first six minutes).

These people were not criminals, but ordinary folks with families. Being scared
...just as you said - they weren't criminals (unlike those murderers, rapers and other sick minds in village). I know it's not clear what happened, but I don't think Abigail just came and possesed their mind just for fun.
And "being scared" is also important point. It's very different from being angry, thirsting for revenge and such things. I know in game it happened quite fast from events in cage :) but still - angry mob came for revenge with weapons and plan to murder someone and Geralt did not kill them ... if there would be choice right after first dialogs, when you leave cage and if there would be option to kill crowd or Abigail, that would be maybe more complicated (not for me ;) ), but Geralt hadled it pretty well and leave with her without fight. After that they prooved again how mad they are and attacked them again.

They decided that it was always better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six, which is usually a sound judgement.
There is one point in CSI, which I liked a lot in this episode - their chief (not sure with his name) reminded them one important thing - all of them looked on that case from side of murders, no one tried to look on it from victim's point of view. So - here it is: you are Geralt and you are standing in front of that angry mob, which wants to burn you. What would you do - would you try to fight of would you say - I am just on man and they are many, so I will die, because I don't want to hurt them.

And one more idea - maybe it's not the best logical choice, but I always preffered to side with weaker people in troubles and tried to protect them. It is also main goal of witchers - to protect weaker ones from beasts (no matter what skin they have).
 
Last edited:
In any case, I doubt in TW3 we will have real moral dilemmas, where any decision feels bad. People do not usually take (perverted :) ) pleasure in contemplating such things, but simply get uncomfortable.

Tricky moral dilemmas is exactly what the series in known for. Why would you expect to not see that in TW3?
 
Tricky moral dilemmas is exactly what the series in known for. Why would you expect to not see that in TW3?

I think vivaxardas means that the fictional moral dilemmas on CSI are much stronger than the fictional moral dilemmas in the Witcher games, that even the stronger ones like whether to intervene in the lynching of Abigail or Stennis have been much cleaner and less challenging. They don't rise to the level of sacrificing an innocent to prevent harm to many, or surrendering a country to avoid a war you have no hope of winning.
 
Top Bottom