Actually, he DOES frown at Geralt for being a mutant. If you side with the Scoia'tael, during the end of the game, Siegfried sneers at Geralt for being "not even human." He's nice to Geralt as long as Geralt as useful, but once Geralt stops being useful, Siegfried shows his prejudice.VictorHarder said:
I'm at the bank in chapter 3 and i'm of two minds, usually I go my own way to meet Yaevinn and try to talk him down, but his speech about Aelirenn and martyrdom rankles me. Thus in rejecting him I side with Siegfried to avoid the greater evil.
But i've been taking my time in this playthrough, and investigating every nook and cranny, and it's fairly obvious that the flaming rose is conspiring with Adda to overthrow Foltest. The forged seal, DeWett trying to usurp Thaler, armourers being forced to give away free arms etcetera. The clues just keep mounting up and then Thaler states at Leuvaardens party that someone in the room is backing the amphibians.
My Geralt believes that it's Adda, how else have they become such a power in the city, virtually ignored by the guard (outside Vincent) and terrorising non humans and humans freely.
Given these thoughts circling through my white wolfs mind, can he trust his safety and the secrets of Kaer Morhen to a knight of the order who may be unknowingly in collusion with the enemy. It would seem to be a cunning stroke to turn the enemies allies against them, but Geralts life and the Witchers secrets hang in the balance. It is a very risky move.
Also I would not be choosing to aid the Scoiatael, i'd simply be using them to achieve my goals, as I admit to myself when Triss asks me why I decided to stand with them. I like this answer because Geralts hides the truth from Triss, suggesting that he's not entirely forgotten that conversation with Philippa at the beginning of the chapter. Yaevinn it has got to be said also seems a lot more cunning than Siegfried, an alltogether more formidable being, both in terms of brains and actions.
But then again turning the enemies strength against themselves is the wise warriors way, and Siegfried is both strong and good. A shining example of what a knight should be when compared to the likes of DeWayze and DeWett. So do I risk trusting a good man in a bad place or use a bad man to make good on my vengeance.
So my answer to the question is: I'm ploughed if I know. I did support the order in the swamp during the force recon, but I thought that I was stopping a weapons shipment by Hav'caaren, and thus helping to stop an escalation of the violence.
But i've been taking my time in this playthrough, and investigating every nook and cranny, and it's fairly obvious that the flaming rose is conspiring with Adda to overthrow Foltest. The forged seal, DeWett trying to usurp Thaler, armourers being forced to give away free arms etcetera. The clues just keep mounting up and then Thaler states at Leuvaardens party that someone in the room is backing the amphibians.
My Geralt believes that it's Adda, how else have they become such a power in the city, virtually ignored by the guard (outside Vincent) and terrorising non humans and humans freely.
Given these thoughts circling through my white wolfs mind, can he trust his safety and the secrets of Kaer Morhen to a knight of the order who may be unknowingly in collusion with the enemy. It would seem to be a cunning stroke to turn the enemies allies against them, but Geralts life and the Witchers secrets hang in the balance. It is a very risky move.
Also I would not be choosing to aid the Scoiatael, i'd simply be using them to achieve my goals, as I admit to myself when Triss asks me why I decided to stand with them. I like this answer because Geralts hides the truth from Triss, suggesting that he's not entirely forgotten that conversation with Philippa at the beginning of the chapter. Yaevinn it has got to be said also seems a lot more cunning than Siegfried, an alltogether more formidable being, both in terms of brains and actions.
But then again turning the enemies strength against themselves is the wise warriors way, and Siegfried is both strong and good. A shining example of what a knight should be when compared to the likes of DeWayze and DeWett. So do I risk trusting a good man in a bad place or use a bad man to make good on my vengeance.
So my answer to the question is: I'm ploughed if I know. I did support the order in the swamp during the force recon, but I thought that I was stopping a weapons shipment by Hav'caaren, and thus helping to stop an escalation of the violence.
Aeonn posted:"Fighting for peace etc"
Sorry Aeonn but that statement is leftist bullsh*t and like all of that, shows a total ignorance of man and history.
FYI the pacifist Christian states of North Africa and the Middle east (excluding Zoroastrian Persia although they went the same way) said the same thing about Islam when it stormed out of Arabia and conquered half of the western word within 100 yrs. Islam was the reason that the jesuits and the Inquisition wre created abd why the conquisadors and the cathlic shurch became so cruel but it takes no little effort to work that out as most academics are leftist.
Pacifism only works if the opposition have a conscience. Gandhi would not have lasted 10 minutes in Soviet Russia, fascist Japan or Nazi germany or ANT Muslim state (look at how Egypt persecutes its Copts and the weekly massacres in N igeria)
I was a pacifist christian until 14: i turned the other cheek and i had the sh*t punched and kicked out of me at school and outside of it. They used to laugh at how easy it was as they shoved my face into toilet bowls (4x they did this). I became agnostic at 14 and within one month no one came near me once i dropped my pacifism. That is how brave they were and i have never thrown the first punch in my life.
people who are as deludsed as you are a menace to mankind.
Evil will ALWAYS succeed when good people do NOTHING. Learn some bloody history!!!
To all else...sorry folks but idiots like this are destroying western culture which is man's greatest creation.
Sorry Aeonn but that statement is leftist bullsh*t and like all of that, shows a total ignorance of man and history.
FYI the pacifist Christian states of North Africa and the Middle east (excluding Zoroastrian Persia although they went the same way) said the same thing about Islam when it stormed out of Arabia and conquered half of the western word within 100 yrs. Islam was the reason that the jesuits and the Inquisition wre created abd why the conquisadors and the cathlic shurch became so cruel but it takes no little effort to work that out as most academics are leftist.
Pacifism only works if the opposition have a conscience. Gandhi would not have lasted 10 minutes in Soviet Russia, fascist Japan or Nazi germany or ANT Muslim state (look at how Egypt persecutes its Copts and the weekly massacres in N igeria)
I was a pacifist christian until 14: i turned the other cheek and i had the sh*t punched and kicked out of me at school and outside of it. They used to laugh at how easy it was as they shoved my face into toilet bowls (4x they did this). I became agnostic at 14 and within one month no one came near me once i dropped my pacifism. That is how brave they were and i have never thrown the first punch in my life.
people who are as deludsed as you are a menace to mankind.
Evil will ALWAYS succeed when good people do NOTHING. Learn some bloody history!!!
To all else...sorry folks but idiots like this are destroying western culture which is man's greatest creation.
I don't want to cast doubt on what you say but I think this thread isn't the right address for your excitement and anger, especially the idiot and bullshit terms.
In my recent play through I was completely neutral for the first time. At the bank I helped Yaevinn. I first said I'm staying out, but when you're given no choice at least Geralt got to say "I'll help, the witcher way." That satisfied me.
I don't think so KaerWolf. I started reading the books recently and I think in the 3rd or 4th one, Geralt says something like "Ciri was right, neutralism is really cruel".
And the more I read the more confused I get. The only way to be Geralt (imo) is to join sides. And although the Scoia'tael are more like terrorists in The Witcher 1, Geralt always sides with non-humans.
And the more I read the more confused I get. The only way to be Geralt (imo) is to join sides. And although the Scoia'tael are more like terrorists in The Witcher 1, Geralt always sides with non-humans.
I think to side with a group or faction is not the same as become a member or join the society. It's not a marriage
CDPR gives the play much freedom to decide who we want to support as Geralt. If they stick very close to the novels nothing exciting would have in the games because Geralt doesn't want to meddle with other issues.
Though Geralt has to decide for the Scoia'tael or the Order resp. Iorweth's commando or the Blue Stripes he has in both games a major aim that comes first. He wants to get back the Witchers's secrets and he wants to find out who is the mysterious kings slayer plus why he has lost his memory. Both issues have nothing to do political affairs. But the more he gets into the issues the more he gets involved in non-Witcher related things.
I think in the 'Price of Neutrality' this attitude becomes very clear. Witchers don't want to interfere with political plots but here they can't avoid it.
CDPR gives the play much freedom to decide who we want to support as Geralt. If they stick very close to the novels nothing exciting would have in the games because Geralt doesn't want to meddle with other issues.
Though Geralt has to decide for the Scoia'tael or the Order resp. Iorweth's commando or the Blue Stripes he has in both games a major aim that comes first. He wants to get back the Witchers's secrets and he wants to find out who is the mysterious kings slayer plus why he has lost his memory. Both issues have nothing to do political affairs. But the more he gets into the issues the more he gets involved in non-Witcher related things.
I think in the 'Price of Neutrality' this attitude becomes very clear. Witchers don't want to interfere with political plots but here they can't avoid it.
I let the Scoia'tael take the goods at first, but then I helped the Order ultimately.
Why? Because the Scoia'tael are the biggest goddamn hypocrites I've ever seen. The Elves did the same thing to the dwarves (that humans are doing to non-humans) before humans came along.
When they want stuff from Geralt, it's "You're not a human, you'll never be accepted by humans. Help us." When they don't, it's "dh'oinne" this "dh'oinne" that, and Yaevinn himself calls you a dh'oinne several times. I thought Geralt ain't human?
They consider obviously consider you human and are just lying about being accepting when they want something.
I'd help the Scoia'tael if Yaevinn was out of the picture, which is why in W2 [W2 spoilers], I help Iorveth. At least he calls you vatt'ghern 90% of the time; acknowledging your non-human status.
Why? Because the Scoia'tael are the biggest goddamn hypocrites I've ever seen. The Elves did the same thing to the dwarves (that humans are doing to non-humans) before humans came along.
When they want stuff from Geralt, it's "You're not a human, you'll never be accepted by humans. Help us." When they don't, it's "dh'oinne" this "dh'oinne" that, and Yaevinn himself calls you a dh'oinne several times. I thought Geralt ain't human?
They consider obviously consider you human and are just lying about being accepting when they want something.
I'd help the Scoia'tael if Yaevinn was out of the picture, which is why in W2 [W2 spoilers], I help Iorveth. At least he calls you vatt'ghern 90% of the time; acknowledging your non-human status.
In the bank I'd rather help Yaevinn and Scoia'tael, but in Act IV I'm neutral. I think I have tried all the possible walkthroughs, but this one is the best way to play the game in my opinion. The only negative effect is that wizards gain power in Temeria thanks to my choice. But no choice in this game is perfect... isn't it?
Squirrels, of course. The Scoia'tael are my brothers in vengeance, to quote Letho. They're men and women, oppressed and detested by society, often denied a decent living life and looked down on simply because of race. Why is it ok for a King to declare the non-humans as the enemy and encouraging the persecution of elves and dwarves, but it's not ok for the Scoia'tael to use violence as a means to resist the intruders?
Most people see the Squirrels as terrorists, I know that they're not. They're freedom fighters, and I'll gladly stand side by side any elven brother against the fanatical racist humans.
Though in practicality, what does this mean? How long do you have to fight before you lose your honor and vengeance clouds your judgement? When you've lost direction and forgotten the very reason you fight, are you still a freedom fighter or a simple outcast and brigand? Give elves and dwarves and all the other non-humans their own homelands, where can be free from persecution and hatred. That way, any reason for the Scoia'tael to continue fighting, will disappear, allowing them to return to their countries and leave the life of guerilla warfare behind.
So yeah, when the Scoia'tael fulfill their destiny and mission, they'll all leave. But the Order? They're a bunch of fanatical, racist fucks that will stop at nothing when it comes to burning non-humans and even mages at the fucking stakes. Fuck the order. I'll kill every single one of those cunts. Hopefully I'll get a chance to murder them all in W3.
Awesome conflict, great factions, well developed characters. Man I love the Witcher!
Most people see the Squirrels as terrorists, I know that they're not. They're freedom fighters, and I'll gladly stand side by side any elven brother against the fanatical racist humans.
Though in practicality, what does this mean? How long do you have to fight before you lose your honor and vengeance clouds your judgement? When you've lost direction and forgotten the very reason you fight, are you still a freedom fighter or a simple outcast and brigand? Give elves and dwarves and all the other non-humans their own homelands, where can be free from persecution and hatred. That way, any reason for the Scoia'tael to continue fighting, will disappear, allowing them to return to their countries and leave the life of guerilla warfare behind.
So yeah, when the Scoia'tael fulfill their destiny and mission, they'll all leave. But the Order? They're a bunch of fanatical, racist fucks that will stop at nothing when it comes to burning non-humans and even mages at the fucking stakes. Fuck the order. I'll kill every single one of those cunts. Hopefully I'll get a chance to murder them all in W3.
Awesome conflict, great factions, well developed characters. Man I love the Witcher!
I've just played my first playthrough. I've sided with the scoiatel, and I'm with the people unable to see the reasons for not doing so. Specially after the plot develops and the cool flaming guys show their true colors.
Maybe it's just because in this "side" things show different... but what are those horrible deeds of the sociatel everybody mentions? As I see it, they just defend themselves...
Maybe it's just because in this "side" things show different... but what are those horrible deeds of the sociatel everybody mentions? As I see it, they just defend themselves...
Some players mistakenly think that the Scoia'tael kills everyone in the bank during the bank job. Actually, those people lying on the ground are NOT dead, as players will discover if they try to talk to them. And since the bank was Vivaldi's to begin with, the Scoia'tael are only stealing BACK what belonged to a dwarf to begin with. But players who see bodies on the ground and believe them to be dead are understandably upset at what they think is murder.DearPotato said:
In several runs thorough the game, I've never sided with the Order; I've only taken the Scoia'tael or neutral paths. But you can do a task for Siegfried in Chapter 3 -- if you do it before the bank job happens -- that shows a darker side of the Scoia'tael.
Siegfried tells you that people have gone missing in the cemetery and asks you to check it out. When you enter the cemetery, you see a ghoul feasting on a human corpse. Ah, there's the problem, right? Actually, no. If you talk to the ghoul (this is an unusual ghoul, one who can talk), he tells you that actually, it's a Scoia'tael unit that's been killing people in the cemetery, and he tells you where to find them.
If you go there, you find a group of elves and dwarves who tell you that you don't have time to fight them, because they've just pushed a group of humans into the crypt that you're all standing next to. If you enter the crypt, you can save SOME of the humans but not all of them. This particular Scoia'tael unit appears to be killing any humans they can get their hands on, regardless of whether or not those humans have ever done anything to elves and dwarves. They've gone from fighting for their rights to a race war.
I agree with you in that I think the Scoia'tael's cause is more just than the Order's. But there are a lot of people in the Scoia'tael, Yaevinn doesn't have control over all of them, and some of them do use unsavory methods. But find an army where no one ever does anything bad -- it can't be done.
I was thinking,Scoia'tael would be a lot better if they had a sane,non full of hate racional leader.
The Yaevinn in the game is quite different from the Yaevinn in the books. The book-Yaevinn seems pretty full of hate, but the game-Yaevinn is much more thoughtful, rational, and philosophical.IceEpicX said:
Of course, you see more of the good side of Yaevinn in TW1 if you spend time talking with him; on first meeting, he seems like an arrogant jerk. But then, people who've been the objects of prejudice usually need to protect themselves in some way, and the arrogant-jerk pose is the usual elven way of dealing with being discriminated against.
i chose always neutrality path whatever may be the reason good or bad...
Yaevinn has a greater penchant for flowery words and metaphors than most elves, perhaps rivalling Dandelion alone in his prose. He often claims that all he seeks is equality for his people even though he has a deep hatred for humans and would drive them into the sea.Yeavinn participated in the second war with Nilfgaard. During the Battle of Brenna, he was Lieutenant Colonel of the Deithwen division. He was seriously injured in that battle.
Siegfried of Denesle, is an idealist who adheres to the Order's rules but is not devoid of common sense. Polite and open, he is unlike many of his brothers from the Order in that he is not prejudiced. He is undeniably courageous and demonstrated!!!!!!!!!
Yaevinn has a greater penchant for flowery words and metaphors than most elves, perhaps rivalling Dandelion alone in his prose. He often claims that all he seeks is equality for his people even though he has a deep hatred for humans and would drive them into the sea.Yeavinn participated in the second war with Nilfgaard. During the Battle of Brenna, he was Lieutenant Colonel of the Deithwen division. He was seriously injured in that battle.
Siegfried of Denesle, is an idealist who adheres to the Order's rules but is not devoid of common sense. Polite and open, he is unlike many of his brothers from the Order in that he is not prejudiced. He is undeniably courageous and demonstrated!!!!!!!!!
The more I reflect on the game, the more I realize neutrality is the least of evils.
I want to believe the Scoia'tael cause is just, but they bite the hand that feeds them every single time, and the way they abuse unarmed humans is appalling. By the time my Geralt realizes he just helped them case the bank for a robbery, he's had it up to his keister with them.
I want to believe Siegfried is the best hope for reforming the Order, but my Geralt's good example is just so many pearls cast before swine. His sabotage of Geralt's attempt to make peace in Murky Waters is the last straw.
I want to believe the Scoia'tael cause is just, but they bite the hand that feeds them every single time, and the way they abuse unarmed humans is appalling. By the time my Geralt realizes he just helped them case the bank for a robbery, he's had it up to his keister with them.
I want to believe Siegfried is the best hope for reforming the Order, but my Geralt's good example is just so many pearls cast before swine. His sabotage of Geralt's attempt to make peace in Murky Waters is the last straw.
Thank you! I didn't knew that; of course, I guessed that different paths or further exploration would lead to some nasty scoiatel secrets... but it seems I was lucky enough not to see themCorylea said:
Anyway, I keep thinking they are a much better group than the Order.