Romance in TW2 and Geralt's integrity.

[HeelPower]

Romance in TW2 and Geralt's integrity.

So I am going to discuss primarily two "Romances" in TW2 and why some of them seem really at odds with Geralt's motives in the story(Should you decide to engage in them) Now thankfully , they are kept optional in the game so this isn't an attempt to complain but discuss how they could ever make sense.

1)Cynthia.The worst offender.

TW2 immediately establishes Triss as someone important in Geralt's life.The game gives you options about everything except this element.When you need to get the rose of remembrance Triss offers you help.Whether you accept her help or not ,she tells Geralt with absolute honesty that she wants to live with him and cares about him.She wants him to regain his memory and accepts Geralt for what he is.

People say its "a friends for benefit" kind of thing but TW2 really doesn't establish it as such on many occasions. Geralt himself prioritizes saving Triss when she gets kidnapped by letho and ,later, by Niilfgard.

Cynthia, the Niilfgardian sorceress and spy who double crossed the mighty philippa, was DIRECTLY involved in Triss' kidnapping.At that point Geralt isn't even sure if Triss is alive or got killed and Cynthia played a huge role in that.

How does it make any sense that Geralt could have a romance with such a character ? She is absolutely dangerous and untrustworthy and maybe have been responsible for Triss' death at that point.

Geralt would be a backstabbing , disloyal, horny lowlife if he engages Cynthia.

2)Succubus

Geralt is a monster slayer.Succubus are known to seduce man and could potentially be very dangerous.Geralt of all people should absolutely refuse to fall for her tricks.He is no ordinary man and should be extra cautious when around such a creature.

Imo Geralt would be a Gullible idiot as opposed to a legendary monster slayer if he romances a freaking succubus.

Generally I would say the relationships are a step back from TW1.Shani and Triss made a lot more sense to me than anything in TW2.

I hope TW3 continues to make every relationship optional.I tend to view Geralt as a man of morals who cares about his friends and I don't want that to be tarnished by such silly encounters.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

First of all, this idealistic view of Triss is not what all forum members accept. We had a lot of discussions, and her honesty, integrity, and behavior was questioned. I am, for once, not a fan of Triss.
I do not really like her since the books, I always went for Shani in TW1, and waking up in bed with Triss in the beginning of TW2 was a kind of continuity screw-up for me.
During TW2 we have a lot of opportunities to turn her down. We can avoid the bath scene, or even taking her there altogether, during a conversation about Letho and leaving together Geralt can very clearly tell her where his priorities lie, and the most telling - we can refuse to give her a rose when she tells "give it to someone you love..." After that Triss has a sincere and sad moment, and tells - do you know why the lovers stayed together for so long? Because they are statues, just statues.

For me at this point their romance was pretty much over. I never save her over Anais (an innocent kid always takes priority), and even if I would have, it is because of friendship, or association, not romance. "We do not leave our people behind" is not about love, it is about camaraderie and group loyalty.

My preference was always for Ves. But when I played Iorveth's path I was OK with sleeping with Cynthia. Why a hell a neutral witcher would care about her being Nilfgaardian? Geralt is pretty much an equal opportunity guy, at least where sorceresses are concerned. Also Triss' adventures are her own doing. Why did she run to Vergen instead of teleporting back? She trusted Philipa, got screwed, and ended up with nilfgaardians when Cynthia saw an opportunity. Nothing of it was done directly against Geralt, it had nothing to do with him, and only with the Lodge and usual in-fighting among sorceresses. When he saves her, he plays a rescuer of a damsel in distress, only this particular damsel brought it onto herself.

I do not sleep with Succubus because I do not feel like doing it with a goat/vampire cross-breed, but I do not really feel like killing her as well. She provides an equal trade, and does not do permanent damage, after all.

 

[HeelPower]

Triss is someone important to Geralt and a good friend even if not a Lover.Even if you refuse to take her to the get the rose she still tells Geralt that she cares about him and that he should settle down with her.

Cynthia shrunk Triss into a figurine and helped deliver her to Niilfgard , hence endangering her very life.Geralt knows this and he is someone who cares about his friends the most.He also knows that Cynthia is a sly snake who tricked Philippa and is willing to kill her comrade in the secrets of LM.

Geralt couldn't simply go oh ill forget about all that and sleep with her.It doesn't make any sense.

Cynthia is an enemy as she transgressed against Geralt's close Friend(or lover).Her saying " I like you" doesn't change any of that.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

You know what turned me against Triss? On Roche's path when we in a dream follow Serrit and Auckes, we have this little dialogue:

- It is Triss Merigold who worries me. If she betrays that Sile ordered us to get rid of Demovend, things will get out of hand. Letho should have killed her.
- He should, but apparently he only kills kings.

For me this wasn't revelation about Sile's involvement, but Triss knowing about it when we were still in Flotsam (there is simply no time for her to learn any of it after being kidnapped). She could have told all of it to Geralt, and then it would be probably Geralt (and not Letho) who would have broken into Sile's room. Geralt was accused and hunted, Triss knew something very important, and Sile, with enough persuasion, could have cleared Geralt still in Chapter 1. But Triss wanted to do right by The Lodge, and ran to Philipa. Philipa turned her into a statuette (Cynthia helped, but it was Philippa's idea - the statuette was on Philipa's night table for days). Personally I felt betrayed and screwed up by a person I considered a friend. Whatever Triss' reasons were, she chose other priorities over Geralt's well-being. So after this revelation I was not really eager to save her from anything, especially given that her predicament was her own doing.

 

[GuyNwah]

The hookup with Cynthia doesn't make sense at all to me, even though Geralt has reassurance that Triss is alive and not badly harmed. Even if Cynthia aided Geralt, she's still the one who put Triss in danger. Whether armchair moralists see Triss as deceitful or evil is irrelevant: Triss is Geralt's friend, and he has no motivation to shack up with her enemies.

With the Succubus, Geralt's moral dilemma is similar to the encounter with Abigail, the vampires in the House of the Night, or the striga: which monster represents the lesser evil? The Succubus or Ele'yas? Abigail or the Reverend? The Queen of the Night or de Weyze? Adda or de Wett? All the same, it cheapens him and cheapens the decision for him to think with his kutas that way.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

The hookup with Cynthia doesn't make sense at all to me, even though Geralt has reassurance that Triss is alive and not badly harmed. Even if Cynthia aided Geralt, she's still the one who put Triss in danger. Whether armchair moralists see Triss as deceitful or evil is irrelevant: Triss is Geralt's friend, and he has no motivation to shack up with her enemies.

With the Succubus, Geralt's moral dilemma is similar to the encounter with Abigail, the vampires in the House of the Night, or the striga: which monster represents the lesser evil? The Succubus or Ele'yas? Abigail or the Reverend? The Queen of the Night or de Weyze? Adda or de Wett? All the same, it cheapens him and cheapens the decision for him to think with his kutas that way.

Yeah, if we recall that Geralt hooks up with Cynthia on Iorveth's path, but learns about Triss' betrayal or whatever you call it, on Roche's path, I actually agree. Were I to play Iorveth's path first, without knowing full picture, it would look pretty bad. Whatever she hides from him at this point, he is not aware about the full scale of her dishonesty. But, in order to be consistent, this entire quest shouldn't have three endings. The only sensible outcome is either to refuse to help, or to kill all of them in the end. Letting either both of them, or just Cynthia go, wouldn't also make sense.

With succubus, yes, it is the same thing. Also succubus does not kill, and does not turn people into vampires. So she is even less harmful. I never kill her, but I do not sleep with her.

 

[Jobbert.907]

There's only one thing for it, lads... Stick with Ves.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

There's only one thing for it, lads... Stick with Ves.

Yep, that's the way. Unless she is with a little unicorn. This will be an interesting development. But given that Geralt tends to pick up abandoned royal children wherever he goes, it wouldn't be a big surprise.

 

[GuyNwah]

There's only one thing for it, lads... Stick with Ves.

True.

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that Geralt is at his best with Ves, that their romance is the best written in the game, and that finding out what happened to Ves in TW3 is of the utmost importance.

 

[HeelPower]

The extent of Triss' dishonesty doesn't warrant a death sentence ,and Geralt sure as hell wouldn't allow such grave harm and danger to come to her.

She made mistakes , she isn't perfect , she is torn between membership to a faction and Geralt ,but all in all she is still important to Geralt.

What Cynthia did is unforgivable by Geralt and doesn't setup for a romance in anyway.

Heck romance with sile would make more sense.

There's only one thing for it, lads... Stick with Ves.

I tend to think of Ves as one of the blue stripes, Roche's agent and Geralt's "Teammate"

I like her and she seems nice ,but I somehow wouldn't want a romance with her.

I think Geralt and Ves wouldn't go further than that one time, if ever.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

What Cynthia did is unforgivable by Geralt and doesn't setup for a romance in anyway.

What Cynthia did was served her country, and did her duty. The girl, just an apprentice, ran through the mist in order to deliver the statuette and help strengthen Shilard's position on a summit. Given how much danger she was in, but still chose to do it, she deserves at least a silver star. Cynthia does not owe anything to Geralt, Triss, or to the North, so there is nothing to forgive. Her holding back, against her duties, would be a treason, because she is a field operative on an assignment. This is a general thing about duty and loyalty, does not matter to what country, Nilfgaard, Temeria, Russian Federation, Poland, or USA. Duty should come first.

 

[gab961111.59]

Sometimes its fun to do something Geralt would never do.

 

[GuyNwah]

Cynthia did her duty, and did it honestly and well, which is more than you can say for the other Nilfgaardians. She even gave Geralt considerable information and aid, if you play it that way. I can't condemn her for those things. But I'm not Geralt, and I can't imagine Geralt overlooking what she did to Triss, not to the point of bedding her while Triss is in danger.

 

[HeelPower]

What Cynthia did was served her country, and did her duty. The girl, just an apprentice, ran through the mist in order to deliver the statuette and help strengthen Shilard's position on a summit. Given how much danger she was in, but still chose to do it, she deserves at least a silver star. Cynthia does not owe anything to Geralt, Triss, or to the North, so there is nothing to forgive. Her holding back, against her duties, would be a treason, because she is a field operative on an assignment. This is a general thing about duty and loyalty, does not matter to what country, Nilfgaard, Temeria, Russian Federation, Poland, or USA. Duty should come first.

Fair enough. If that's the case then Geralt and Cynthia are on two opposite sides of a fence and incompatible due to duty or fate.

Niilfgardian is not the issue here ; Being a dutiful girl involved Putting Triss directly in harm's way who is Geralt's friend.

The world is setup in a way that makes a voluntary romance incompatible.She hurt Geralt whether she intended to or not.

EDIT : BTW Cynthia is also a traitor.Killing Adalbert would probably be looked upon as treason by Nilfgaard.Doubt she is the best patriot.Adalbert is more loyal than Cynthia.He wasn't wiling to allow Gerlat any artifact's from the mission that should be sent to the emperor.

 

[adridu59]

I think that with Cynthia it can make sense since they've been opponents (kind of) and they're just talking like old enemies in Loc Muinne; plus Geralt gets a chance to work with her right before that talk where Cynthia defends him (i.e. she is interested by/in him).
If they are both attracted to eachother at that precise point I think that something like a oneshot relation has its sense from Geralts point of view. If they are talking about their respective loyalties in the first place, it means that they have respect for eachother and find it worthwhile to engage a talk and discuss their convictions.

Besides, here is a quote from the quest journal that might make it onto the context:

Throughout their quest beneath the city's ruins, Geralt had remained wary of Cynthia - and for good reason. Yet as they worked together to overcome mortal danger, the ice between them melted. When a quarrel broke out over Dearhenna's legacy, the sorcerer Adalbert wanted to kill the witcher. Cynthia, however, took Geralt's side.

 

[Jobbert.907]

What Cynthia did was served her country, and did her duty.

So just because Cynthia kidnapped Triss out of 'Nilfgaardian duty', she suddenly becomes untouchable? When someone kidnaps your friend, you have no right to be mad at such a person, because the kidnapper was carrying out the will of some foreign country?

 

[vivaxardas2015]

It obviously was not Cynthia's idea. May be it was Cynthia who turned Triss into statuette, but by using Philippa's power and by her orders. So I would blame Philippa for it. That she stole Triss and brought her into Nilfgaardian camp was clearly her initiative (nobody could have predicted such development), but she did it for her country. Geralt may consider Nilfgaardians as enemies (it is what it looks like on Iorveth's path anyway), and want to do something about it, but it would be a situation like on a battlefield - you kill enemy soldiers because they are enemy soldiers, and not because they wronged you personally.

By the way, it is one of the reason I prefer Roche's path. Triss' involvement is much more clear, I just nicely speak with Nilfgaardians, and Shilard is actually helpful with his hints concerning the Lodge's involvement, and he does not try to kill me. On Iorveth's path I feel like in Far Cry 3 with Vaas (Did I ever tell you a definition of insanity?). Also in the end I have a chance to right some wrongs - to save Anais and give her some measure of peace and protection with Natalis.

So just because Cynthia kidnapped Triss out of 'Nilfgaardian duty', she suddenly becomes untouchable? When someone kidnaps your friend, you have no right to be mad at such a person, because the kidnapper was carrying out the will of some foreign country?

It is not about being untouchable. She did not do anything unforgivable because she did not owe you anything. Fighting with them like you would fight with enemies on the battlefield is another matter. We kill a lot of Kaedweni soldiers on our way to Vergen with Roche, but it does not mean they did something unforgivable. Sometimes duties collide, and both sides behave according to their duties, that is all. Cynthia is an enemy, but she is not blameworthy.

EDIT : BTW Cynthia is also a traitor.Killing Adalbert would probably be looked upon as treason by Nilfgaard.Doubt she is the best patriot.Adalbert is more loyal than Cynthia.He wasn't wiling to allow Gerlat any artifact's from the mission that should be sent to the emperor.

No. On that mission Cynthia was a commanding officer, in charge of the operation. She knew full extent of their mission, and allowed Geralt to use the device only to have time to look for the notes on a virus. The virus was their main objective, not megascope. Those imbecile, who was unaware of the full extent of their mission, jeopardized the entire operation by attacking a commanding officer. If he had survived, he should have been court-marshaled and, hopefully, executed.

 

[Shavod]

You know what turned me against Triss? On Roche's path when we in a dream follow Serrit and Auckes, we have this little dialogue:

- It is Triss Merigold who worries me. If she betrays that Sile ordered us to get rid of Demovend, things will get out of hand. Letho should have killed her.
- He should, but apparently he only kills kings.

For me this wasn't revelation about Sile's involvement, but Triss knowing about it when we were still in Flotsam (there is simply no time for her to learn any of it after being kidnapped). She could have told all of it to Geralt, and then it would be probably Geralt (and not Letho) who would have broken into Sile's room. Geralt was accused and hunted, Triss knew something very important, and Sile, with enough persuasion, could have cleared Geralt still in Chapter 1. But Triss wanted to do right by The Lodge, and ran to Philipa. Philipa turned her into a statuette (Cynthia helped, but it was Philippa's idea - the statuette was on Philipa's night table for days). Personally I felt betrayed and screwed up by a person I considered a friend. Whatever Triss' reasons were, she chose other priorities over Geralt's well-being. So after this revelation I was not really eager to save her from anything, especially given that her predicament was her own doing.

You're completely wrong. After you save her in Act 3, she confesses that she didn't know about it, she just suspected they may know something about it, but she couldn't believe that Lodge was willing to commit a regicides just to further it's goals. Even Sile confirmed later that she didn't know about it (and at that point she had no reason to lie). Triss learned the truth only after checking out Sile megascope and finding out she was contacting with Letho. She wanted to tell that to Geralt, but then Letho came by and this whole turning into figurine thing. Kingslayers are refering to the fact that Letho let her go, despite her RIGHT NOW finding out about it, there is no big revelation in it.

After releasing her, she instantly betrays Lodge because of that. If she knew about that from the beginning, she wouldn't had any reason to do that.

 

[HeelPower]

double post sorry.

 

[adridu59]

Geralt can not have grudge with Cynthia just like with Letho. She was just serving Nilfgaard's interest.