Iorveth versus Roche

[Cs__sz__r]

I remember finding a wounded Siegfried in the swamp. I remember the aid he gave me in the sewers. In repaying a debt, I led his force to victory against the Squirrels. I remember the blood of innocents at Vivaldi's Bank, the crazed, thirsty look in Yaevinn's eyes. I remember the folk of the river town, surrounded by the Elven bandits. I felt only sadness as I cut them down.

But I also remember Vizima, the hell on earth as it burned. Nonhumans slaughtered out of fear and hate. Zoltan's pain and anger as we looked at what I had done. I was ashamed. I was angry. I didn't have a choice, did I?

He was like Yaevinn: arrogant, angry and massive prick. I remembered Vizima. Behind his hate I saw love. Beneath his pride I saw humility. I gained his trust and returned mine in kind. He was no Mother of Melitele, but he was not a monster.

--Glaroug in Geralts Boots, a truly riveting tale

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

I'd read it.

And for some reason my brain said "Geralt can still have two holes to play with" and it's fucking disgusting.

 

[Cs__sz__r]

I'd read it.

And for some reason my brain said "Geralt can still have two holes to play with" and it's fucking disgusting.

And on that note, goodnight, thanks for the laugh!

 

[wichat]

Who many of you when starting the game try to say "fuck you" to Roche hoping escape from the dungeons by himself? Roche kills you, you have no choice than accept his proposal, and Roche know it. Saving Geralt's life? Let me doubt it.

Roche doesn't save his life: he's abusing of the situation because Geralt is the best and the one who can catch the real kinkslayer. (Ok I often forget that the most of players hasn't not the experience and maturity of Geralt and their choice are leading by XXI century culture

). Geralt, as Triss says, doesn't own nothing to Roche and Geralt answer her he already knows it.

Do anybody remember how many months Geralt needed to trust Cahir?

Geralt start the game with NO freinds. It's not a fairy tale, it's a story of conveniences of interests, political corruption and null value to human life. It must be good no forget it for a real inmersion and understanding of the whole context.

About non-human, the prologue pray:

Famine and disease reign in all the North. Elves and Dwarves inhabit ghettos. In ever increasing number, they flew to the forest to join Scoia'taels....

Those method cannot be judged under a narrow term terrorism. In this case, humans should be also qualify as terrorist by exercising terror in nonhuman populations, children, women and elderly included.

Reduce Geralt's world in just two camps, wrongly labeled patriots and terrorists is of great lightness for a game that claims to be mature, deep and complex, where there is neither good nor evil, but survival.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Do anybody remember how many months Geralt needed to trust Cahir?

I couldn't care less. If my Geralt trusts Roche in a shorter amount of time, then that's what happened.

Those method cannot be judged under a narrow term terrorism. In this case, humans should be also qualify as terrorist by exercising terror in nonhuman populations, children, women and elderly included.

Yes, but as we have argued several times already, the Scoia'Tael brand of terrorism is quite distinct from the human one, as the war they are fighting is not the same. Because "terrorism" is actually quite broad.

Roche has no agenda to fight a racial war, Iorveth did (he changed later).

 

[Maerd.298]

For me Roche and Iorveth are the same breed of scum. In my dictionary, a patriot is a euphemism for an unquestionable or fanatical executioner of the rulers' will, which precisely describes Roche. His master was killed and instead of trying to protect or ensure protection to heirs to the throne he chases the killer, who is no longer relevant to the situation, for pointless revenge and, at the end, he fails in everything unless Geralt helps him (and my Geralt finds no reason to help him at all).

Iorveth is no better. In chapter one, Iorveth doesn't provide even a single valid reason, in my opinion, why Geralt should help him. He definitely wasn't likable, he tries to kill Geralt, threatens him and behaves like an asshole (Yeavin from TW1 was way more convincing for his cause). IMHO, CDPR writer has made a weak plot bridge without strong reasoning why Geralt should be helping Iorveth (I don't count the reasons unrelated to the story such as some players who might find Iorveth attractive and choose him because of that).

On my first playthrough I chose Roche just because there was no other logical choice for me and then the rest of the game felt like Geralt was always forced by circumstances to do something he's not willing to do if it was his choice. While it's a valid real life scenario, it wasn't very interesting scenario for a game, because I had a feeling I'm playing the role of a pawn in the big game and whatever choice I'm making it's a choice that favours somebody else but not Geralt. At the end, I felt that from the technical point (minus interface) a game was brilliant but I was a bit disappointed by the plot, which was not as involving and didn't have that atmosphere as in TW1. Lack of interaction with several main characters on the Roche's path didn't help. Neither Dandelion, nor Zoltan, nor Sile had anything interesting to say. Chapter two on Iorveth's side was more interesting but felt illogical as a choice for me to make in chapter one.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Well, on Roche's path you at least a real witcher master Gerald, you are in control how to break the curse, Dethmold works for you, and not the other way around. On Iorweth path you are an errand boy of that bitch Phillipa (some may disagree, but it was exactly how it felt for me), and, to put it mildly, it wasn't rewarding in any way. I barely made it through.

 

[wichat]

Roche has no agenda to fight a racial war, Iorveth did (he changed later).

Roche obey order of a xenophob society which praise human superiority: non-human has no rights.

Iorveth lead a group from 3 differents races they have no leader representation in Human kingdoms.

One has the power that force gave them under laws imposed by Humans favoring humans in despite other races. The other has the power of nothing to lose, no lands, no leaders recognized as equals among Human Kings, no food, no houses, no army to defend themself for facing a standard war.

In a society like this I can see that Roche has agenda to fight a racial war because he is doing it EVERYDAY. Has Roche any good act for any non-human in the game? Can you see an anti-xenophob man in all his role in the History?

Making the non-human unequal situation perpetual is, for me, a silent and accepted dirty racial war. Xenophobia in Geralt 's world can be compared to marginalization by gender in actual society: it exist but is not politically correct to show it (luckly for us, less every time).

Iorveth is a leader, Roche is an ordered commander, does this position make Roche more innocent or Iorveth more guilty? I cannot defend Iorveth nor Roche if I look with my eyes as a person cultived in an age of Right Humans are in my everyday. But I can understand and support both of them if I can be immersed with their beleive and situation.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

You keep assuming that I don't understand or sympathize with the Scoia'Tael when I do. I in fact like Iorveth more than Roche and I sympathize with even Yaevinn.

Calling them terrorists however and pointing out the differences between the two (Roche does not kill nonhumans who abide by the law that yes is crap, while Iorveth killed humans indiscriminately) is independant from my feelings towards them. It's just facts.

Also Ves was very sad when Merril died and Roche was concerned for the half-elven kid. Indeed, the blue stripes stopped making elven jokes after that incident because they are not as heartless as you portray them. When did Iorveth say one just one good thing about a human, let alone care?
It's understandable that he doesn't, but that makes him a different person than Roche.

 

[wichat]

You keep assuming that I don't understand or sympathize with the Scoia'Tael when I do. I in fact like Iorveth more than Roche and I sympathize with even Yaevinn.

Calling them terrorists however and pointing out the differences between the two (Roche does not kill nonhumans who abide by the law that yes is crap, while Iorveth killed humans indiscriminately) is independant from my feelings towards them. It's just facts.

Also Ves was very sad when Merril died and Roche was concerned for the half-elven kid. Indeed, the blue stripes stopped making elven jokes after that incident because they are not as heartless as you portray them. When did Iorveth say one just one good thing about a human, let alone care?
It's understandable that he doesn't, but that makes him a different person than Roche.

But... where have you get out that Roche has no killed any innocent women, children or elderly elf or gnom or dwarf?? He lead several pogroms... do you forget who died in that pogroms? He's a Blue Stripe Commander, do you think he has hade any remorse while summoning his men to raze camps or nonhuman ghettos without separating innocent guilty?Even Foltest is feared by his cruelty, he say it to Geralt at doors of monestry....

 

[CostinRaz]

Roche and his men are not responsible for pogroms, the pogroms as far as every bit of evidence is linked so far points to them being done by bloody peasants not soldiers. Even in Flotsam Loredo's men did not take part in actually killing elves and dwarves but rather incited the peasants to do that.

What Roche does is deal REBELING non-human communities, but there's a clear cut difference between what he does and Iorveth does.

Regardless of what he has done Roche's crimes pale in comparison to Iorveth's crimes and to ignore that is to be ignore facts out of sheer bias.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Roche does not carry out pogroms that's not his mandate.

He deals with rebelling non-human community. Does he end up killing innocents in the process? I'm sure of it and I never claimed he was innocent. But it's different than what Iorveth does, which is deliberately targetting human communities and massacring them.

 

[CostinRaz]

The day the Blue Stripes massacre entire villages of innocent elven and/or dwarven peasants due to their hatred of their race, butchering everyone: Men, women, children and elderly while enslaving a woman or two as sex slaves is the day one can say they are just as bad as the Scoia'Tael, until you have anything to point that they did this you cannot say the crimes of the Blue Stripes come close to matching those of the Scoia'Tael ones.

The story about the village being burned and everyone massacred besides a girl who was made a sex slave btw, that's Ves's story and guess what to Ves race is irrelevant since she's fighting what she calls bandits.

 

[wichat]

Roche does not carry out pogroms that's not his mandate.

He deals with rebelling non-human community. Does he end up killing innocents in the process? I'm sure of it and I never claimed he was innocent. But it's different than what Iorveth does, which is deliberately targetting human communities and massacring them.

Sorry, you're wrong, Blue Stripe were created to lead pogroms under oficial way during the war. In books. Scoia'taels became to cumbersome to face The Blake ones for the Northen Kingdoms.


And I still say the same: pogroms and form humans and undiscrimated village attacks from elves are the same. No matter how you call it.

 

[CostinRaz]

Based on what evidence exactly?

The wiki and games are clear: The Special forces were created to counter the SCOIA'TAEL. The first special forces where those of Aedirn led by White Rayla created during the events of Blood of The Elves.

You're not the only one who can read the books you know.

 

[wichat]

Based on what evidence exactly?

The wiki and games are clear: The Special forces were created to counter the SCOIA'TAEL. The first special forces where those of Aedirn led by White Rayla created during the events of Blood of The Elves.

The wiki is writen by readers. Books are writen by Geralt's creator.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Countering guerilla fighters is not carrying out pogroms. They carry massacres out when non-human communities rebel, yes. But they don't massacre them indiscriminately because of their race. Simply because it's stupid and counter-productive.

 

[wichat]

Countering guerilla fighters is not carrying out pogroms. They carry massacres out when non-human communities rebel, yes. But they don't massacre them indiscriminately because of their race. Simply because it's stupid and counter-productive.

Oh! this is not the world in which Spawoski made Geralt live...

Many years of war are explained in them....I can resume them here and less in English. Lack of original information can make us have a wrong vision of the whole context and their details...

Spoiler

Et, oui, Je retourne aux livres parce que l'histoire de Geralt que nous connaissons dans les jeux est null si on ne connais pas les années et tous les personnages qui font cette histoire. On peu tout simplement jouer

 

[CostinRaz]

Then prove it, quote passages from the later books, but you are claiming they were CREATED to carry out pogroms which is NOT what is stated in the blood of the elves.

Also the journal entry for special forces in the GAME also states this.

EDIT: At this stage I really am close to saying fuck the books with how people try and shove their biased views on me based on something that may or may not have happened in them.

I don't give a fucking shit what happened in the books, all I care for is the information I have from the GAMES.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Another person who read the books told me of the special forces, and they are not what you describe. But if you feel compelled to prove your point then go ahead.

But whatever atrocities they committed during the war is irrelevent to how they are in TW2 and after the war. And in TW2 they do NOT carry out pogroms.