The think the writers did an excellent job of giving both the order/squirrels a fair shake, as early on I was worried they'd make the order into some sort of two-dimensional fundamentalist crusader militia and the squirrels innocent widdle babies forced into harsh measures by the unwarranted racist directed against them. In fact, aside from anachronistic terms like "terrorist" being thrown around (maybe only present in the English translation) both sides were very well developed. Whilst nonhumans were shown to be constantly persecuted, they did not always join the rebels (see Vivaldi, who despite his hatred of humans refused to aid the elf leader straight after being bailed out of prison), nor were they angels themselves - if you pay attention to what the elves in particular say when strolling around Vizima temple quarter it's clear the see humans as "apes" and therefore beneath them, which is unlikely to have manifested solely because of their status as second class citizens. So you can have the squirrel leader himself - a longtime elf supremecist hinted to have no interest in living alongside humans but in regaining the elves' mastery of the region - and Toruviel
On a personal level, I preferred Sigfried to that slimeball of an elf. I felt bad for the non-human's plight but that didn't justify Yaevinn's methods.In the end, I chose the neutral path. I couldn't justisfy helping either side because they are both in the wrong. So screw them, and let them have their petty little bloodbath. My Geralt is walking away with as little blood on his hands as possible ( or at least trying to... :
)
)My very first play I remained neutral on the whole, with a slight preference towards the order (sometimes you HAVE to pick a side as you know...). This time I'm going all-out Squirrels and on my third play-through I'm going to fully support the Order.It's fun playing different sides.
Like Darkelve, I remained mostly neutral, save with a slight preference towards the elves.I didn't much see a reason to be interested in the factions in the early acts save when I finally encountered Siegfried for the first time. I can see I am very pointedly not alone in thinking Siegfried was a great guy. He was the first (and only, I can safely say, as I am now at the end of the game) NPC I felt any endearment towards whatsoever. I helped him, he helped me. Sweet deal. I originally thought the order was going to be a standard set of frothing-crazed religious maniacs, and did a double-take when Sieg came in to play.I sided with the elves in the bank heist as I reflected on the fact that Vivaldi was the victim of a hostile take-over. This is both harsh and unfair in the long run in my humble opinion. Though Vivaldi was a victim here in my eyes, I don't like that smug whelp of an elf Yaevinn one bit---okay one bit, but that's only the initial word-sparring match we had. Else, I could live without him. Help a victim, and help a jerk at the same time. That's life.I stayed out of the political end of things from that point on until the end of the game. Where suddenly my victimized elves turned themselves into blind, bloodlusting berserkers, living only for war and destruction of humans. Their ideals warped in the face of horrible odds and desperation. I admit, I considered a radical 180 back to the order. When I caught wind of the Grand Master's plans, and the horrors they had commited, I could no longer support either side in a struggle that---like many wars---was perpetuated by stupidity and ignorance.I walked on my own side from there to the end of the game, feeling entirely justified.Thanks to the game creators for allowing us to remain neutral, and painting our path through politics and power in delightful shades of gray. I greatly appreciate having the choice to remain separate from the factions in a game.All of that being said... When I play through again, that Yaevinn is going to taste three feet of steel the first chance I get to make it so. Have a drink with me Sieg! Waitress, another cherry cordial for my pal here! He just got promoted!
I choose the Order, as the Knights of The Flaming Rose almost appear as the good guys if you pick they're side. atleast that is until Aldersberg tries to take over the world with his vile abominations, besides Siegfried is a much better ally then Yaevinn and his murderous Scoia'tael and I think he will make a good replacement as Grand Master.. Anyone who disagrees can burn in the Eternal Fire for all I care. 8)
I went with The Order.There's actually a dialog choice that explains my reasoning pretty well, when Geralt is speaking with Alvin. He says that the Scoia'tael are fighting a hopeless battle against the tide of history and that they will only succeed in bringing a few humans down with them.I think this is more or less right on the money. I can't condone the treatment of non-humans at the hands of human racists - who would? - but it seems pretty clear that it is a regrettable side effect of a new order. Based on the conversations Geralt has with elves, Yaevinn in particular, I'm almost positive that humans would receive no better treatment if their positions were reversed. As far as I can see, whether humans or non-humans prevail, there will be no end to bigotry and second-class citizenship. This established, I believe the most ethical choice would be to simply end the resistance.EDIT: I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask: how exactly do you get the "neutral" ending? It seemed to me that most of the choices throughout the game leaned pretty strongly one way or the other. Where/when is the turning point where you're permanently set on the Order/Squirrel/Neutral path?
In act one, when you talk with Zoltan, it is clearly that Zoltan doesnt suport the Squirles. When you talk with Patrick De Weyze and ask about Sigfried, its also a bit clearer that Siegfrieds begins to question the couse (Awell, Patrick is dead now while I whas protecting some vampires, hehe, choosing for 'humanity' instead of blind slaughter). I will try to stay out of the conflict as much as possible.... All in all, a robery is wrong (even though it is a dubious takeover), and after what Yaevin did in the cemetery, sacrivising innocent humans.... Yaevins mother sucks dwarfcock!For the rest, ill try to be as neutral as possible
well all three, had some advanages, i think if you support flaming rose order the game is most dramatic if you want to be emotional in it. You get one of the card girls killed and respawned as a monster, Your dwarven friend doesn't speak to you, but You can convince Zigfried to be a better person and after he is elected a GM You have a powerfull friend, but what You did to squirels is very bad also, You can think that this way You betrayed Toruviel very badly expecially if You did some quests for elves... So this is the most tragic/dramatic way. Beeing neutral is i think what Geralt would choose in the books and it is revarding because You get to help everyone You supported and liked a little. Staying with the elves seemed to be the worst choice to me. I did it only to check elvish ravens armor.
For the first time through I've been sticking with the neutral path. Both sides annoy me. Both sides have too many faults for me to jump right into. When I replay the game again I'll go all out one side and try anohter on the third go around.
Well, initially I killed the squirrels at the weapons shipment. Later, in the swamp, I helped the elves, although I do not remember clearly why. I helped them again with the bank robbery, believing it would help me with Vivaldi, perhaps helping me with my main task. In Murky Waters, I helped the elves as they were pretty peaceful.Then I got Aerondight, and the whole talk about destiny, trying to be a decent man, and right after that, after I try hard to help solve the hostage situation with minimal losses, that guy from the order runs in, breaking the agreement I had with White Rayla. At that point, I simply could not sneak away, it would be a betrayal on my part, and rewarding the betrayal of my trust by the Order soldiers, even though I did not like the Elven attitude towards the villagers one bit. For the same reason, I got a second Dwarven sword when I could have gotten the Moon blade. Because I trusted the Lady of the Lake (probably the only character I really trusted in the game), Aerondight would be the blade that would be with me until the end, when it pierced de Aldersberg. One does not abandon a blade like that just by comparing statistics.Then, at the end, I found the Elves to be the only ones I could still work with, I saw that most of them had become just as bad as those they fought, I did not like their faction anymore and did not want to be with them, but all other bridges had been burnt. Ah, destiny... I did appreciate Yaevinn coming along with me and trying to make a deal with Foltest in the end, but most of the lower ranking elves seemed as crazy as the Order fanatics. And as we saw in the ending movie, it all went wrong anyway.
I've only got to the start of Act 3 so far but so far,I side with the Knights because they are way more badass and have way better and way more badass voice-acting (in the UK version at least). Squirrels look., act and sound like whiney pansies IMO. Besides all that, Siegfried is cool and my friend, always supports and encourages me and helps me out.But Yaevinn, like a loser, begs me to help him even though I don't know him from Adam and he never did anything for me.
I went with the Order in the first playthrough, Seigfreid seemed like a pretty noble sort...turns out it didn't end the way I expected though. That and the Scoia'tel characters seemed to me at the time to be too bandit-like. The neutral path was more rewarding, not getting tangled up is always a good policy
I'm just into Act III and i have yet to see a polite squirrel. Even when i just complete a task for Yeavin his awnser pretty much ammounts to "Yes, you did what could be expected from your stupid race, here's your gold, now f*** off, human scum"
If Siegfried and co can be friendly, why are al the squirrels total bastards?
Having researched the books, which was part of having actually deciding to stay neutral the 1st time, though after seeing that outcome, Squirrels all the way baby.Freedom fighters, founding fathers, terrorists it's all the same thing these days, anyway might as well enjoy it where it doesn't start an actual revolution or get me killed and tortured.
Here here! Well said! From what I have seen in what is happening in certain changes to our laws and new laws that are springing forth; there are no lies in that statement. Anything said or done these days, even in the smallest most harmless sense could be construed by some as terrorism.tracido said:Having researched the books, which was part of having actually deciding to stay neutral the 1st time, though after seeing that outcome, Squirrels all the way baby.Freedom fighters, founding fathers, terrorists it's all the same thing these days, anyway might as well enjoy it where it doesn't start an actual revolution or get me killed and tortured.
Locking random innocents in crypts together with a pack of ghouls is fighting for rights?Following that logic Hitler was fighting for Arian rights by gassing jews.I'm sure you can see a small flaw somewhere...Whisperwind said:
Flaming Rose, for two reasons:- Scoia'tael are terrorists. Fighting soldiers is one thing, killing bystanders is inexcusable. - Scoia'tael are just as racist as the knights are. They might view Geralt as "different" while they need him, but as soon as they gain the upper hand, he'll be just another d'honne.
That kinda makes the whole concept of a solid reason to join the knights a bit hypocritical, doesn't it? It's ok for them to kill innocents and children, and also rape and torture innocents as well, but the elves start to and OMG it's this huge difference.DamarStiehl said:
Wait, LOCKED, wtf, I walked right in without a key? Where in the world did this comparison come from out of DITCHING humans to get AWAY. In the books BOTH sides are nasty, it's war. That's how it works and guess who has MORE power to do worse at this point once we enter in game?Let's not forget the OCCUPATION of elven land is where this stemmed from, hey, let's let China occupy america to force, er I mean give us their version of freedom and kill anyone THEY deem terrorists and see how willing WE are to comply, sounds fair to me.DamarStiehl said: