whitch side id you pick and why?

[trekker1982]

whitch side id you pick and why?

in the witcher 1&2 what side did you pick and why.

in the witcher 1 I went with the elfs as I enjoy fighting for the underdog and it felt more heroic
in the whitcher 2 I once again sided with the elfs as I was more interested in saving triss rather than sorting the king slayer out as the story moved on and I found out what was going on I kinda liked what they where trying to do so I joind the fight.

so what about all of you?

 

[username_2093396]

The first time I played TW1 I sided with the Scoia'tael because I sympathized with them at first, but then towards the end of the game I felt that they were just as fanatical as their oppressors. When I replayed the game I went down the neutral path and that feels like the right path to me, so that's the save I imported into TW2.

For TW2, my first time I chose Roche's path because I liked him a lot more and trusted him to continue helping me. Plus I wanted to take Loredo out My second time I chose Iorveth's path to see the other side of the story. I really like Saskia, but Roche's path feels more natural to me in terms of fitting in with the Witcher universe, so I haven't decided which one is my official choice. As I understand it, the Enhanced Edition patch will go into more depth explaining the consequences of our choices in TW2 so I will wait for that before I decide which save I'm keeping for TW3.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

TW1, sided with the Order. They felt more useful to my Geralt in his hunt for Salamandra. That and while I sympathize with elves and I like Yaevinn, I think his methods are unwise. Not a huge fan of the Order, but they bring peace and stability to the greater part of the populace. Siegfried represented the good part of the Order that I'd like to promote.

TW2, sided with Roche. Made more sense to me overall and I trusted Vernon. I like his path better, though I really do like Iorveth and his path.

 

[username_2093396]

Siegfried represented the good part of the Order that I'd like to promote.

I agree. I liked Siegfried a lot and my only real regret for being neutral was not helping him more. I did manage to keep him alive though, so I hope that it carries through in a future game if applicable (I'd hate to have him dead by default just because I didn't side with the Order).

 

[phamvan94]

In TW1 sided with the Order at first, because Siegfried was a good friend and helped Geralt out. Then turned into neutral, because that is what Witchers are, plus no sane person would want to get into a war between the Scoia'tael and the Order/Wizima.

In TW2, I went with Roche because I trusted him more. He busted Geralt out of jail, and saved his life, he deserves something in return.

 

[gibb_geralt]

TW1 my Geralt was neutral. Both sides were completely fanatical. I found no redeeming qualities in either.

TW2 he went with Iorveth. Mainly because his goal changed from clearing his name to finding Triss, and Iorveth was heading to Triss's last known location. So it really wasn't about taking sides. My Geralt only went with the Temerain special forces to clear his name, and the Scoiatel to find Triss. He used them to his own ends. But the Iroveth path definitely conjured up lots of sympathy from me, to the point where i actually believed Iorveth's fight for equality was an admirable one.

CDPR definitely made the two sides a lot more complex and empathetic in TW2. TW1 it just seemed like both sides were full of absolute nuts.

 

[schmooples]

TW1; Neutrality: Ends don't justify the means, so neither.

TW2: To be seen.

 

[Blothulfur]

In the swamps I chose the order, i'm not helping to arm terrorists and Siegfried is a hundred times more trustworthy than the cunning and nihilistic Yaevinn. At Vivaldi's bank I chose to oppose Yaevinn again, it's an act of violence against innocents and i'm not being party to that. The elf reveals his taste for martyrdom in that moment, when speaking of the young elves uprising at Loc Muinne, that confirmed to me that he's dangerous and I wanted no part of his madness.

Then in Murky Waters when the elves take the villagers hostage, after so many acts of kindness instead of slipping away, I was filled with rage. That place was holy and protected by the lady, they spat on that and I deemed them enemies. I did not mean to side with the order but they happened to be pursuing a path I did not object to, that of protecting the innocent and taking a stand against fanatics.

In Assassins of Kings I chose Roche's path, in memory of king Foltest and on behalf of his children.

 

[CostinRaz]

Initially on my very first run I skipped on Force Recon so I was neutral until Vivaldi's Bank, where I helped Yaevinn. Not because I cared about him but rather I liked Vivaldi and wanted to help the dwarf. Of course that set me down the path against Siegfried. I refuse neutrality, I believe it's incredibly stupid to shut your eyes to the problems of world but I very much disliked the Scoia'Tel and their fanaticism since my first run.

Since then I have sided with the Order every single time. Have to say killing Yaevinn is very satisfying.

In TW2: Roche is my cannon, though yes I like Iorveth's path since unlike Yaevinn he is no fanatic fool who wants to murder all humans. I believe he did at one point then changed his mind, which is good. It's also good that no one ever sugar coats what he is: A mass murderer and terrorist.

 

[jjavier]

i had to admit in TW2 elves will give you a better game-play, but in mine mind, killing civillians is wrong. And both sides do that.

May be the games don't reflected as they should, but scoia'tael has a lot of inocent blod in theirs hands.
My geralt stays as neutral as he can.

 

[dragonbird]

Elves in both games, out of support for the underdog, but I think that if I'd read the books before playing and had a better understanding of them, I may have picked differently in TW1.

I like Siegfried now, but I came to TW1 straight from DA2, so I was a little biased against religious militants.

 

[Anwell]

First playthrough In TW1 I chose neutral, but replayed and chose the elves, was not an easy decision. Both sides have so much blood on their hands in the end.

TW2 went with Iorveth and didnt regret that. Now I am just waiting for the EE so I can play both paths again

 

[leif89]

The witcher 1 i picked the flaming rose all the way b/c i felt i could trust Siegfried.

The witcher 2 i picked iorveth b/c he may have more information on the kingslayer than roach has.

im just in the beggining of act 2 so time will tell.

 

[steelbom]

In The Witcher 1, I sided with the Order three times, as they seemed to be the lesser evil in each instance, and I thought Yaevin's methods, and goals, were pointless and wrong. I ultimately chose neutrality in the end though.

In The Witcher 2, I sided with Iorveth because Roche rushed in when he shouldn't have. I agree with Iorveth's goals, although not all his methods, and genuinely believe he's looking for a better future and wants peace.

 

[William105.236]

Never played Witcher 1.

Sided with Iorveth on my first run, basically because it seemed that he knew more about the kingslayers and their goals and was more of a resource than Roche. The next run I sided with Roche out of curiosity and liked the side, but hated that I had to help Henselt. So I like the Scoia'Tael outcome best, but the decision in Act 1 is a tricky one.

 

[DoDoBrd]

In the first game I went with the elves. The second I met the first flaming rose knight in the sewers I got a bad impression to say the least.

The second game I went with Roche as he freed me from prison, boy what a surprise I was in for when I ended up on the side of an imperialistic fat ass. I was tempted to end my first playthrough early to switch sides or even just revert back to a save. Iorveth is no saint, but the characters who are his enemy did a good job (for the first time I played it at least) of painting him as an ignorant old man who was so blinded by his hatred he was more to blame for the suffering the elves and dwarves were facing. Call me naive but I had become quite fond of Roche by that point in the game and didn't see that he harbored the same ignorance that was branded on Iorveth. Iorveth actually fights for something greater than Roche's misplaced zeal in his former king, even if Iorveth goes about it in the worst possible way.

 

[Nordicus]

In Witcher 1 I chose the side of Order, partially due to Siegfried being such a nice guy and representing the best parts of his society, partially because the Scoia'tael are making every non-human look bad despite their intentions, and during Chapter 4's hostage situation I thought less blood would be spilled overall if I ended the situation quickly

In Witcher 2 my siding with Iorveth came as a bit of a mistake, but I had good reasons to join on top of it. When the Blue Stripes attacked and I was too busy thinking about my fight with Letho, Iorveth telling me to give him his sword made me go "Uhh yeah, sure, whatever". I only understood my mistake after the fight when I returned to Flotsam, where an entire riot had started. Too embarrassed to meet Roche anymore, and worried about Triss, I went along with Iorveth hoping for the best.

 

[Quillan]

In the first game, my sympathies lay with the non-humans; not because they were the underdog, but because Geralt has much in common with them. The common people want to have nothing to do with Witchers unless there is a dangerous monster that needs killing. The act I quest in the Vizima outskirts gave ample demonstration of their typical attitude. I really liked Siegfried at first, but as the game went on the Order stepped closer to the line and eventually crossed it, and I found myself unable to even consider siding with them.

The second still found my sympathies lying with the non-humans, but the reason for my choice was much simpler this time: time was of the essence. Letho had Triss (my friend/companion/lover) and had made off for Aedirn with her. I could help Roche and stay here for an unspecified amount of time, or I could help Iorveth and immediately set off in pursuit of Letho. I went with Iorveth. I've since replayed the game several times and followed both paths, but I prefer the Iorveth path to the Roche one.

Both sides have decent goals but horrible methods.

 

[KenjiJU]

Didn't play #1.

On my first playthough, I saw no reason to pick Iorveth. At that point he was a jerk, outlaw, and whatever else. Roche's path included vengeance for the self you started the game with and for your king. Later though it seems like this is ultimately unfulfilling, creating a shadow of a kingdom what once was, Roche essentially being all that remains. How exactly could a child redeem a whole nation? (Perhaps only in stories like these and Game of Thrones) Also on this playthrough I had no idea how much an ass Henselt was at first.

Second playthrough I picked Iorveth purely for the sake of content. I was surprised. I got to meet new characters (feels like more too, at least more important ones) and a much more 'enchanting' story. Felt a lot more fulfilling than Roche's path by a lot.

 

[whiplash27]

TW1
1st Order
2nd Scoia'tael

TW2
1st - Iorveth
2nd - Roche
3rd - Iorveth
4th - Roche
5th - Iorevth

Think that's how I did it. I beat TW2 first though.