Iorveth versus Roche

+
Roche. He didn't have to trust Geralt and allow him to escape. Siding with him made sense. But I think I prefer Vergen from a gameplay standpoint.
 
Corylea said:
Yes! I'd love to see that choice re-worked so that Iorveth offers something that would appeal to Geralt as strongly as what Roche offers.

Iorveth's path has Geralt look for Triss more pro-actively.
Also, Iorveth worked with the kingslayers before, he knows their tactics and modus operandi, in addition to Serrit and Auckes hiding amongst them in Upper Aedirn. Moreover, part of Geralt's rationale could be to meet Philippa Eilhart, who might help him find Triss. Finally, it's pretty clear that Roche's priority is Temeria first and foremost (as evidenced by his attempt to kill Loredo, which you could think is a waste of time) and Geralt might conclude that siding with him would hold him back (indeed his meddling in Kaedweini affairs almost got him killed. But Iorveth's path also has Geralt stuck in politics).

There are logical reasons and incentives to want to side with Iorveth, depending on your Geralt's perspective and primary motivation. And that's not mentioning ideological reasons.
 
Iorveth. I just can't stand Roche, maybe because of his path (Henselt and Dethmold uhh...) or maybe because of his personality, along with his squad's (basically die non-humans, no matter whose side you are on). Iorveth might be a character that can be unlikeable first, and he has a pretty bloodstained history, but at the siege of Vergen he shows that he can also care for humans, and becomes one of the more reliable friends of Geralt. So, for me:
MM360 said:
Iorveth FTW!
:)
 
DeargRuadhri said:
maybe because of his personality, along with his squad's (basically die non-humans, no matter whose side you are on).

That's inaccurate. Some of them are clearly racist (the one Geralt can bitch slap), but we do not see or hear of Blue Stripes killing nonhumans indiscriminately. Ves cared for Moril and the rest of the Blue Stripes were clearly affected by what Loredo did (see the transition cutscene).

The Blue Stripes are ruthlessly cruel when dealing with rebelling nonhuman communities, but that does not mean they go out of their way to kill any nonhuman they find.
 
I like Iorveth path more because of the dwarves ,I did not like being the king's servant in roche path.
 
KnightofPhoenix said:
Iorveth's path has Geralt look for Triss more pro-actively.
Also, Iorveth worked with the kingslayers before, he knows their tactics and modus operandi, in addition to Serrit and Auckes hiding amongst them in Upper Aedirn. Moreover, part of Geralt's rationale could be to meet Philippa Eilhart, who might help him find Triss. Finally, it's pretty clear that Roche's priority is Temeria first and foremost (as evidenced by his attempt to kill Loredo, which you could think is a waste of time) and Geralt might conclude that siding with him would hold him back (indeed his meddling in Kaedweini affairs almost got him killed. But Iorveth's path also has Geralt stuck in politics).

There are logical reasons and incentives to want to side with Iorveth, depending on your Geralt's perspective and primary motivation. And that's not mentioning ideological reasons.

That's a little bit stretching it. Half of the stuff you mention we can't really know before making this choice - that we will look for Triss more pro-actively (or that she and Letho should land on this particular side of the mountain renge), that we will learn about Serrit and Auckes this way... Or why should we learn about them at all, if we abandon the best chance of clearing our name - by cooperating with the party that actually represents Temeria.

Again, Roche offers more to Geralt - his word protects Geralt from political retribution, he has a network of spies, diplomatic leverage, and above all, he is a proved ally.

Iorveth gives Geralt nothing - no real information, no protection, and he is the one who landed us in this mess in, in the first place.

Again, Iorveth is hell of a character later on - but that one choice makes Roche autowin, to my mind.
 
Mrowakus said:
if we abandon the best chance of clearing our name - by cooperating with the party that actually represents Temeria.

Sure, but Geralt can have other motivations. He can tell Triss that he doesn't mind abandoning his quest to find the kingslayer. His main priority can be to either find Triss (where Philippa Eilhart can come in handy and yes we can know that before making the choice) and / or to recover his memory. Or it can become ideological.

Furthermore, even if you wanted to clear your name, while I do agree that Roche's path makes more sense in that regard, Iorveth does not offer you nothing. Like I said, he worked with them, he knows them and how they operate. And if Letho himself feared Iorveth, he feared him for a good reason.
 
Iorveth, in the one play through I managed to force myself to go with Roche, I Only wanted to kill Henselt every time i saw him.
 
Iorveth for me. I went with the elves in TW1, so I guesses I just continued down that path. And Roche came across as a bully, bit to hotheaded for my taste. Though being rescued by him on Iorveths path was awsome. I also love the dwarfs!
 
KnightofPhoenix said:
Sure, but Geralt can have other motivations. He can tell Triss that he doesn't mind abandoning his quest to find the kingslayer. His main priority can be to either find Triss (where Philippa Eilhart can come in handy and yes we can know that before making the choice) and / or to recover his memory. Or it can become ideological.

Yes, but we don't know that by siding with Roche we will block our opportunity to seek Triss because a magical mist will appear from nowhere and divide the map. Again, it's a little bit skipping ahead of the narrative.

However, I agree that Geralt's personal reasons here a quite good... but somehow insufficient. They lack clear rationalisation - why should I trust someone who 5 minutes back from now was clearly my enemy?

Of course, it could be that maybe I shouldn't trust him, but he teases me with something only he can offer (e.g. intel) - which would really play the role later in the narrative. As it is, Iorveth offers nothing, and apparently gives nothing.

Furthermore, even if you wanted to clear your name, while I do agree that Roche's path makes more sense in that regard, Iorveth does not offer you nothing. Like I said, he worked with them, he knows them and how they operate. And if Letho himself feared Iorveth, he feared him for a good reason.

The reason Letho feared Iorveth is explained to the same reason Letho could fear Roche - cunning and network of agents. Again this is more of player's feeling empathy towards Iorveth than Geralt making a calculated decision.
 
One of the most interesting defining qualities of The Witcher as a character, is the notion of how the world around him is not only understood, but also how he accepts this understanding. At the top of this list, is the understanding of what truly constitutes a "monster". Being a professional "monster slayer", Geralt still does not escape the subtle, but promiment emotional pull of "being human" when it comes to drawing a line in the sand, or having to decide when all paths lead to tragedy, which is the more acceptable evil and loss.
Following my established path from the The Witcher, I kept Geralt with a strong "lesser of two evils" mentality, and it was with this notion that chose Rouche for my play through.
Not because he is really any better than Iorveth (both are patriots, both lie, both manipulate, both see only their path as just, and both are so blinded to consequence they cannot accept defeat at the hands of the other), but Rouche presented the "means to an end" to which that lesser evil seemed acceptable. (after all, there is no real trust to be given to a man that was more than willing to allow you to be gutted, skinned and hung all in the name of Temeria.)
Most importantly, in keeping with the ideologies of being a Witcher, Rouche was just as much a monster as any other, and at least keeping him close meant knowing he couldn't take my life any easier than Iorveth would. (In a subtle way, it was like a sideways version of "enemy of my enemy" and such!)

Sincerely,
Witcher of the House of Scorpion
 
Unfortunately I haven't come this far yet, since I still haven't killed that damn kayran.

Reasons being Sile is resisting my Geralt's charms...
 
Mrowakus said:
Yes, but we don't know that by siding with Roche we will block our opportunity to seek Triss because a magical mist will appear from nowhere and divide the map. Again, it's a little bit skipping ahead of the narrative.

Because you might think Philippa will assist you and we know where she is at that point.

However, I agree that Geralt's personal reasons here a quite good... but somehow insufficient. They lack clear rationalisation - why should I trust someone who 5 minutes back from now was clearly my enemy?

They might seem insufficient to you. To me as well, otherwise Roche would not have been my canon path. But to others, it might be sufficient. It depends on perspective, both yours and of your Geralt.

Of course, it could be that maybe I shouldn't trust him, but he teases me with something only he can offer (e.g. intel) - which would really play the role later in the narrative. As it is, Iorveth offers nothing, and apparently gives nothing.

Neither does Roche when it comes to intel. Both end up more or less useless when it comes to hunting the kingslayers. And like I already said, he does offer something, he just doesn't explicitly say it. It's rather evident that Iorveth will know how they operate if they worked together.

The reason Letho feared Iorveth is explained to the same reason Letho could fear Roche - cunning and network of agents. Again this is more of player's feeling empathy towards Iorveth than Geralt making a calculated decision.

Iorveth is far more cunning than Roche and far far more experienced. And mroe resourceful. Of the two, Iorveth is more impressive. That could figure in the calculation.
 
I'm on my second play-through, sided with Iorveth the 1st time (neutral in TW1)and plan on siding with him again this time (pro-Socia'Tael in 1.)

I will play through on the Roche side just for the difference, but not because my Geralt approves of him. From the codex and from Foltest's comments it seems to me Roche is a particularly nasty sort of monster - the type who comes across as all reasonable, but must enjoy the torture aspect of his interrogations a bit too much because he tends to kill his prisoners more than extracting information from them. Just don't see this as the "lesser evil."

I think the centuries of oppression would make anyone bitter and desire revenge, so I can understand the Socia'Tael's violence a bit more. Maybe if there was more information about why the humans are so violently anti non-humans? Something that would justify their oppression of said peoples?

I think of Geralt's past, how he died defending non-humans,& how humans treat him ("FREAK!")and it just flows naturally in my brain. I don't think he hates humans-more like he doesn't think they need more assistance.

Also I love Zoltan,Saskia, and Iorveth is hot a bad ass!!
 
KnightofPhoenix said:
That's inaccurate. Some of them are clearly racist (the one Geralt can bitch slap), but we do not see or hear of Blue Stripes killing nonhumans indiscriminately. Ves cared for Moril and the rest of the Blue Stripes were clearly affected by what Loredo did (see the transition cutscene).

The Blue Stripes are ruthlessly cruel when dealing with rebelling nonhuman communities, but that does not mean they go out of their way to kill any nonhuman they find.
I have to say, I somewhat agree you, but Roche might not be that reliale as some think. In Iorveth's Act III, with the correct choices, Roche can be heard that he is ready to find and kill Geralt and Iorveth (this gets dismissed by his conversation partner, as there are bigger problems than that duo is). Also, Roche might be a bit too ruthless for me (hitting people that basically did nothing, like the one rightfully complaning about the Veyopatis statue, also, he starts the first fight with the Scoia'tael, trying to throw a knife into Iorveth. Other than that, he shows no sign of willingness to talk with the Scoia'tael leader and try to sort out the kingslayer problem together, which might not have been impossible, as Letho duble-crossed Iorveth too, and the Squirrel let Geralt talk, didn't shoot him at sight.)
 

Aver

Forum veteran
DeargRuadhri said:
I have to say, I somewhat agree you, but Roche might not be that reliale as some think. In Iorveth's Act III, with the correct choices, Roche can be heard that he is ready to find and kill Geralt and Iorveth.

He said: "Should I terminate them?". He asked if his orders are to terminate them. He didn't say that he is ready to do so or not. He helped Witcher in Nilfgaardian camp in ACT2 even tho Geralt kinda betrayed him earlier.

Iorveth isn't nice anymore if you choose Roche's path.
 
Hmm, on my first play-through... I chose Iorveth, but I admit I was meta-gaming a bit. At the point that I had to make the choice, I absolutely hated both Roche and Iorveth, I didn't want to side with either of them. I remembered the endings of The Witcher 1 and how all three made me feel pretty miserable. So I decided freedom fighting it is, although it took me until mid-Act 2 to start even remotely liking Iorveth. And to this day, I'm pretty indifferent towards Roche, dislike the majority of people you meet in the camp and ultimately prefer Iorveth's path.


DeargRuadhri said:
In Iorveth's Act III, with the correct choices, Roche can be heard that he is ready to find and kill Geralt and Iorveth (this gets dismissed by his conversation partner, as there are bigger problems than that duo is).
Oh lord, I wanted to punch whoever came up with those "flashbacks"! That just sounded so out-of-character for Roche - he met Geralt in person just a few days before, had no problem helping him although he KNEW who he'd sided with, and now he wants to ~terminate~ him? What the actual hell? I like to pretend that scene was wrong and never happened, lol.


DeargRuadhri said:
Iorveth isn't nice anymore if you choose Roche's path.
He is nicer if you had given him the sword in Flotsam.
 
Top Bottom