So...many people doing bad things makes it okay for Triss to do something bad? I'm not sure I undersand your logic. It's like saying that killing someone is not a dick move, because this happens each and every day.
Last edited:
So...many people doing bad things makes it okay for Triss to do something bad? I'm not sure I undersand your logic. It's like saying that killing someone is not a dick move, because this happens each and every day.
Love how you twist logic and use fallacies. I never said it was OK. I was saying that his morality is his morality. And people are by definition killed in wars so yes some killings are in fact OK. I call out logical fallacies when I see them and I replied to one.
BTW do you not see the logical fallacy you used by equating killing someone to not telling someone something? If you do then please stop using these fallacies because they do not help your argument one bit.
No, the only logical fallacy used here is "some people doing something every day" makes that thing acceptable. Zyvik only showed how absurd that logic is. BTW, this tread is about discussing Triss actions, not moral relativism. If you find her actions acceptable, then good for you, you're entitled to your opinion, just like any poster that disagrees with you, or your moral values.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, if I am to be pedantic, you used a whiff of an argumentum ad populum yourself trying to get your idea across. And let's not forget that an argument containing a fallacy is not necessarily invalid.
The point is that the behaviour of many should not be used as an excuse to pardon or condemn the behaviour of one. Contextualizing this whole Triss thing makes it more ambiguous from a moral perspective, and in my opinion more interesting a talking point, than discussing it in general terms of "loads of folk fuck around". Because while indeed, loads of folk do fuck around, the intriguing aspects are how and why exactly they do.
Congrats on spotting my fallacy.
But the post labeled the act as a "dick move". My response was two fold. First part was the "in your opinion". No fallacy there as I was pointing out that his morality doesn't apply to everyone nor should anyone be judged by his morality. I then linked in the second part which contained a fallacy due to my phrasing.
If I instead wrote "If we applied your morality you would have to condemn thousands of others etc. Instead l linked the two though a fallacy.
At the end of the day the best he should have said was something along the lines of: In my opinion it was a dick move and I didn't like it.
Zyvik's response was pure fallacy. Ooodrin also uses a fallacy in that he firsts says my comment was in violation to the thread but then contradicts himself. If the thread really is about Triss's actions then no moral judgement should be applied. Instead just the facts of what she did or didn't do without any "moral relativism" being given by anyone.
Last edited:
Yes, that is important, to realize when one's opinion is subjective, as it often is when it comes to these kinds of debates.
It wouldn't be much of a debate if the only things we were allowed to discuss were the facts. There are several really nice posts in the thread that sum up the facts. Everyone can agree that this is what we get to see in the game so what? Topic closed let's move on?
Talking about it is only interesting if you can have different opinions, which requires personal interpretations of the facts, which inevitably implies moral judgement at some point.
Plus this is a fictional story. Which means that you don't get to see everything, all the facts are not available to you. So everyone fills in the blank in their own way. Which leads to personal interpretation anyway.
Ad hominem followed by strawman, and there's been several tu quoque fallacies in there too. I think it's maybe better for everyone if the "calling out" stops.
The entire topic is subjective opinion, I don't think anyone is really suggesting otherwise.
I just want to chime in about Triss' intentions surrounding the rose and Geralt. People can do well intended things that end up having what we would consider evil outcomes, or vice versa. I think when it comes to morality people get confused about intentions. Here is a philosophy 101 example, a psychopath is walking down the street he sees a puppy, because the psychopath gets some sort of pleasure from watching other things suffer he decides to kick the puppy, his intention is to kick the puppy to make it suffer, however just as he kicks the puppy, a driver losses control of his car. The psychopath's action punts the puppy out of the way saving the puppy's life. Now we would not say that the psychopath is a good person, he was hurting a puppy for pleasure, however his action 'incidentally' had a good result. Now, let us assume Triss binds Geralt with the rose, her intention is in her own self interest at the expense of Geralt's autonomy. As Christopher Hitchens used to say 'some selfishness is needed for a person to survive,' a person who is purely altruistic (who gives away everything) will obviously not survive very long, and it is even worst if it is at the expense of the life and liberty of their family. However, too much selfishness is frivolous, and it always displaces someone else. By frivolous I mean this, the selfishness of person A does not just exceed what Person A needs to survive, their selfishness is in fact wholly irrational, there is no logical way for Person A to justify their actions that emerge from that selfishness. I would say Triss in this situation intends evil, she just does not think of it as evil (somewhat reminiscent of the banality of evil), moreover her actions come at great expense to Geralt and his loved ones. So what we have with Triss, if she uses a the rose,are bad intended actions that come at the expense of Geralt's liberty, and the life he could have had with his family. I would not be comfortable with saying "Well, Triss did not recognize what she was doing as 'evil', she was being emotional" or, "she just thought it a normal part of love" or that "it's neither good or bad!" Triss, in the aforementioned situation is committing a banal evil, whether she knows it or not.
Last edited:
You said that you don't considered it to be a dick move. So I simply made an educated guess that you consider it to be OK. I was wrong and I apologise.
Erm...when did I do that, exactly? I only equated it with "doing bad things".
Perhaps it would not be a bad idea, at least in my (obviously non-authoritative) opinion, since it seems most anything that is worth saying regarding this subject has been said already from all points of view, and there have indeed been posts that summed up the facts well (like this one by GuyNwah). When it comes to subjective opinions, no one is ultimately "right", and the debate will eventually begin to repeat itself.
The problem is, all of that hinges on an unproven accusation. We could just as well invent theories regarding Yennefer's "plans" with Ciri, and then discuss the morality of those, but it would all be based on assumptions, rather than facts. It is just as plausible that the rose was really meant to be used for restoring Geralt's memory, and at least Geralt's character - having access to all the same information as the player - is never shown to suspect the "evil" version of the story. Which also has some holes in it (also mentioned in this older post):
- Philippa is shown to use the rose immediately in its raw form, with no evidence that it is mixed in the potion (which is likely just the regular cure to what Saskia was poisoned with), it would be a strange coincidence that adding the rose to that recipe would have exactly the effect that Philippa wanted, and that Triss would have access to ingredients like royal blood. If creating a potion out of the rose is not needed for using it to bind someone, then why did "evil" Triss not use it already in the elven baths when there was a good opportunity ?
- the information that the effects of the rose (when used in a malicious way) have anything to do with "love" comes from Philippa in a situation where she has a strong interest in making Geralt not trust Triss
- in Witcher 3, if a save is imported from the previous game where Saskia is not killed but not cured from the spell either, Philippa says that she lost control over Saskia - the spell wears off in the time frame between the two games. That would make its use to bind Geralt kind of pointless
- also in Witcher 3, it is shown that Triss gets the rose back at the end of the previous game. Why not use it then to bind Geralt ? Well, maybe it is no longer fresh enough by then, but it is another doubtful aspect of the theory
- the information that the effects of the rose (when used in a malicious way) have anything to do with "love" comes from Philippa in a situation where she has a strong interest in making Geralt not trust Triss
- in Witcher 3, if a save is imported from the previous game where Saskia is not killed but not cured from the spell either, Philippa says that she lost control over Saskia - the spell wears off in the time frame between the two games. That would make its use to bind Geralt kind of pointless
- also in Witcher 3, it is shown that Triss gets the rose back at the end of the previous game. Why not use it then to bind Geralt ? Well, maybe it is no longer fresh enough by then, but it is another doubtful aspect of the theory
Last edited:
It's a thought experiment, "if Triss used the rose in that way." It was discussed as a possible manipulation on Triss' part by the Op who thought that such manipulation would not be evil on Triss' part. I'm not saying that it really happened, I'm looking at the morality of such a situation. Basically I asked myself 'is what the Op said in regards to the rose and Triss' morality valid?' I expounded a thought experiment from that question. I'm saying that binding Geralt with the rose would be a banal evil on Triss' part. I did not say Triss was a psychopath, if I had, I would not have called what she did a 'banal evil'. I only used the example of a psychopath to explain to people what I meant by intent, not to call Triss a psychopath. I really don't think that you read what I wrote properly.
Last edited:
Triss is somewhere in between. She is not purely a manipulator but neither is she purely a victim of circumstances.
Doesn't matter though because Shani is the best.
Doesn't matter though because Shani is the best.
Well the authors describe Triss as "too kind for her own good". See http://imgur.com/a/OKkAx for article.
This lets us easily infer that she is not a manipulator as her main motive is to do just good.
This lets us easily infer that she is not a manipulator as her main motive is to do just good.
Newsflash: People are discussing her involvement in all 3 games, not just TW3. We already know she's just too nice and sweet to play dirty in the 3rd game, it's her actions from TW1 and 2 that are dubious, and in the spotlight...
Last edited by a moderator:
I already addressed this a page back, good people can commit bad actions, bad people can commit good actions, what really differs between such people is their intent. Furthermore, the authors calling Triss 'kind' does not mean that you can 'infer' that Triss isn't a manipulator, and being manipulative does not necessarily make a person totally bad.
Another example of intent: in the books, Triss reasoned that siding with the Lodge in their planes for Ciri was somehow for the greater good, even though said plan would have seen Ciri turned into the Lodge's puppet to be bred. Triss came to regret her choice latter, and considered her actions evil.
TW2 is not much different from their description either, if you ignore some theories that lack evidence. I do not think a major change in character was intended between the two newer games. Maybe she was a "manipulator" to some extent in TW1, but learning from the earlier mistakes could be seen as part of her character development over the saga.
Last edited:
Maybe the thread title needs to make a distinction if this is according to the books or according to the games. From what I see here all those saying she's a manipulator point to evidence from the books. All those saying she isn't refer to the games.
And no you can't say anything about the Rose of Remembrance as the game NEVER says anything about her motivation except for what she says in game and that was to restore Geralt's memory.
And no you can't say anything about the Rose of Remembrance as the game NEVER says anything about her motivation except for what she says in game and that was to restore Geralt's memory.
I think it's a complete opposite actually. Triss definitely wasn't a master manipulator in the books, she was mostly being manipulated by others.