Oooohh... I just can't stay out of this one, especially because the Order&Squirrels question keeps raking my brain ever since I finished my first run-through. One thing's for sure - I could never, in my right mind side with the Order. Never. One of the prime reasons for it is that I, too, just can't stand religious fanatics of any sort and kind; blindness and stupidity offends me. But on the other hand, Squirrels, imo, are just about as blind and stupid as the Order. True, the war does bring the worst out of people but still, I don't think that to be a valid excuse for various murders and tortures commited by both sides. The way I saw it throughout the game (and the final chat with you-know-who only served to confirm it) is that the whole Order-Squirrels fight went way past the opressed vs. opressors issue that initially started it. At the very root of the issue, my vote would always go to the opressed party but as things progressed, the line between the two went thiner and thiner until there was nothing to it but two bands of murderers fighting each other, shifting blame and, ironically enough, resembling each other like images in a mirror. And not only that but also, I got this feeling that the two fractions now actually need each other: they both seem to define themselves by their hatred for the other. If it weren't for the Squirrels, the Order would have no one to be just and rightous at and if it weren't for the Order, the Squirrels would have no one to dircet their discontent at. So those I perhaps felt the most for were those who got caught in the middle - the simple people who either a) hopped onto the 'hate nonhumans!' wagon because, frankly, that's the only way for them to have someone/something even they can fell superior to, or b) didn't really care about the whole human/non-human business (beyond doubt, a smaller group, this) but got caught up into it nonetheless either by getting themselves robbed blind by the Squirrels or getting bullied by the Order under the pretense of "protection"But even that is not as cut and dry as it appears to be; even those who got caught in the middle couldn't remain really in the middle, one way or another and eventually, they, too, had to choose a side. In retrospect, maybe my Geralt should have seen that and learned a leon from it early on.Taking a glance at two notable representatives of both fractions, Siegfried and Yaevinn, only serves to twist my brain even further: -On one hand, Siegfried seems the most decent Order fellow around - undeniably, the man does have his sense of honor and right and wrong and in the sewers sequence, his desire to protect those whoare defensless seems genuine indeed. And yet, I couldn't help but wonder how much zeal would he show if that cocatrice happened to be under the non-human district protion of the sewers. -On the other hand there's Yaevinn who, at first, doesn't strike me as one who'd condone brutal murder. Still, would he or would he not, for example, condemn his own troops for their little graveyard action remains a big question the answer to which I am not sure I'd like. For all his talk of freedom and fighting the opression, I just couldn't escape the feeling that, while talking about prejudice non-humans are facing, he constantly keeps measuring my own ear size. In the end, both of them appear intentionally blind to the fact that they resemble each other much more than either can be comfortable with. So all in all, I'd sum it up thusly:Squirrles: The difference between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" is merely semantics and depends solely on the side from which you choose to view things.Oreder: The price for having guard dogs is agreeing to be a sheep.Summed up like that, the only really sensible thing to do seems to be staying on the fence, leaving the fools to fight it out amongst themselves and hope they spell each other's end. On the other hand though, the entire issue is just too complicated and, to me, emotionally wrecking to allow me to just wisely step aside without picking one over the other. Personal preferences kicking in now, I'll have to say I'm always drawn to the side of the (apperant) underdog and also, naturally drawn against anything even remotely resembling strict order and the infamous "for the good of the people" ideas. I seem to be highly allergic to hiding behind posh words; hypocracy, prehaps, is the biggest crime in my book. Or, as Pratchett put it through the mouth of Sam Vimes in Thud: "
...history and destiny and all the other words that always got trotted out to put a gloss on slaughter."And so when chips are down, I cannot but remain highly judmental of both parties, thinking neither of them to be completely in the wrong yet thinking neither of them employing the proper means to their ends. And yet, I find myself siding with the Squirrels for the most part nonetheless. Hypocritical of me? Likely it is. Perhaps it has soemthing to do with the little speach Yaevinn gives at some point. There's just something in it that made me finally cross over to his side in the end: http://news.filefront.com/the-witcher-us-game-missing-more-than-nudity-and-violence/ (the very last original version is what I'm referring to)*On a side note, I never bumped into that particular dialogu in-game; if anyone can tell me where exactly does one find it I'd be much obliged.Well, pardon my proverbial verboseness on the subject but, as someone who always complained about the lack of ;neutral' options in various rpgs, I find it highly amusing to be finally given one for a change and then finding myself almost completely unable to take it and feel "right" about it all the way. Judging by what I read on these forums so far, I'd say many here more-or-less agree with my sentiments here. In that light, I have to say I find it intriguing to see that, while many here seem to side with the Squirrels at some point, in another pool it's Siegfried who gets the most votes as the "favorite NPC".
