[SPOILERS FOR TW1/2/3] Triss Merigold - master manipulator or a victim of circumstance?

+
I'm not equating anything. These are extreme examples to make the point appear more clearly. The point being : even if Geralt wanted to be with Triss anyway, trying to influence him the way she did is not ok.

Examples given are equating. In fact they fall under the fallacy of "guilt by association" which is an ad hominem fallacy.

I see you now say "is not ok". That is not the same as labeling it manipulation. What is OK is a moral judgement and for you it is not OK. So can I assume that you are no longer calling it manipulation?
 
Last edited:
Just because you are told about your name or another persons name doesn't mean you recover your memories. Amnesia doesn't work that way. It is up to the individual's brain to make the neural connections to restore memories. Geralt recovers on his own and it is not dependent upon being told about his past. At best being told can maybe trigger a reconnect along a neural path in the brain. So this is a false argument.

.

While it is true that in the vast majority of amnesia cases the patients recover mostly on their own, no physician out there will tell you that the best thing for someone with memory loss is to be kept in the dark in relation to his past. Various cognitive therapy methods have been developed specifically to help in the retrieval of lost memories because it is universally acknowledged that an amnesiac should be assisted in the recovery of their identity, not abandoned.
 
Examples given are equating.

I see you now say "is not ok". That is not the same as labeling it manipulation. What is OK is a moral judgement and for you it is not OK. So can I assume that you are no longer calling it manipulation?

Once again, I am not equating anything. The point was : in my opinion the intent IS important. In my opinion Triss intended to influence Geralt, and in my opinion that is not ok. Whether she did change his mind completely or merely strengthened his own decision is not relevant.
I chose on purpose not to use the word manipulation because in my opinion it doesn't matter how you call it. Once again what matters to me is Triss' intention. Calling it manipulation or otherwise is once again just playing with words.
 
Last edited:
While it is true that in the vast majority of amnesia cases the patients recover mostly on their own, no physician out there will tell you that the best thing for someone with memory loss is to be kept in the dark in relation to his past. Various cognitive therapy methods have been developed specifically to help in the retrieval of lost memories because it is universally acknowledged that an amnesiac should be assisted in the recovery of their identity, not abandoned.

Of course. No argument from me. My point is if Triss says "Geralt you had a relationship with Yen. No one knows what happened to her. She might be dead or alive. But I'm here for you and love you." There is no proof that Geralt would say the following: "Ah yes Yen. I know all about her now. Thanks for the offer but I can't.."

Up till now I've never mentioned my theory on what and why things happened this way in the game. I have no proof and it is just a theory. But I think the writers put in the whole amnesia and Triss not saying anything to cover for Geralt. The game had to have some type of sexual/relationship choice. RPG games demand this today. So since Yen wasn't going to be in TW1 or TW2 the writers did it this way.

If the writers instead had Geralt remember yen and still get into a relationship that would look bad on the main character, which is US. A game mechanism was needed to give our Geralt a "plausible deniability" path.

---------- Updated at 06:31 PM ----------

Once again, I am not equating anything. The point was : in my opinion the intent IS important. In my opinion Triss intended to influence Geralt, and in my opinion that is not ok. Whether she did change his mind completely or merely strengthened his own decision is not relevant.
I chose on purpose not to use the word manipulation because in my opinion it doesn't matter how you call it. Once again what matters to me is Triss' intention. Calling it manipulation or otherwise is once again just playing with words.

Actually I have no issue with words like influence. My whole entire beef is with the description of manipulation which has a very specific negative connotation. And I responded to the thread because it used the term "master manipulator". If it said "master of influence" I would have read the thread and never responded.

So to me it completely matters how you call it. Influence means the receiving party still makes their own choice and decision. But manipulator means they don't have that free will and their choice was not made based on what they wanted. It really is a huge difference.
 
Actually I have no issue with words like influence. My whole entire beef is with the description of manipulation which has a very specific negative connotation. And I responded to the thread because it used the term "master manipulator". If it said "master of influence" I would have read the thread and never responded.

So to me it completely matters how you call it. Influence means the receiving party still makes their own choice and decision. But manipulator means they don't have that free will and their choice was not made based on what they wanted. It really is a huge difference.

The definition I find when I check the dictionary : "to manipulate : to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner"
 
Last edited:
So to me it completely matters how you call it. Influence means the receiving party still makes their own choice and decision. But manipulator means they don't have that free will and their choice was not made based on what they wanted. It really is a huge difference.
To be fair, manipulation doesn't have an exclusively negative definition. Like many words, its meaning is more flexible: determined by the context, and the connotations attached to term in the minds of the audience
 
The definition I find when checking the dictionary : "to manipulate : to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner"

I don't want to repeat things already written but please go read posts 93, 130 and some other earlier ones. It discusses in great detail the definition of manipulation and all the the core aspects to the definition. And actual dictionary references were cited to show the full definition and not just a word or three. But basically there are conditionals to using influence.

Because if you really claim influence is manipulation then every film critic, game critic, reviewer, blogger and anyone any place that offers an opinion is doing manipulation.

---------- Updated at 06:45 PM ----------

To be fair, manipulation doesn't have an exclusively negative definition. Like many words, its meaning is more flexible: determined by the context, and the connotations attached to term in the minds of the audience

Not sure where I ever saw a positive connotation when associated to human behavior. Crowd manipulation, data manipulation, market manipulation, psychological manipulation, media manipulation are all negative connotations. Outside of something like spinal manipulation all are negative. See below for Social Manipulation.

Triss is being accused of psychological manipulation. It is defined in Wikipedia as:
"Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or abusive tactics."

Seems very negative to me. (underhanded, deceptive, abusive).

Now social manipulation can be positive. Shaming someone to lose weight has positive results. Of course shaming might not be nice to do.

But at the end of the day all definitions include making someone do something they otherwise would not do.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to repeat things already written but please go read posts 93, 130 and some other earlier ones. It discusses in great detail the definition of manipulation and all the the core aspects to the definition. And actual dictionary references were cited to show the full definition and not just a word or three. But basically there are conditionals to using influence.

Because if you really claim influence is manipulation then every film critic, game critic, reviewer, blogger and anyone any place that offers an opinion is doing manipulation.

Ok, I hadn't seen those posts, my bad.
Well it appears the only "real" divergence of opinion here is how to call Triss' behavior. As I said, it's something that is not really relevant to me, so I'll leave you guys debate whether this thread needs a new title or not then :laughing:
 
Last edited:
Because if you really claim influence is manipulation then every film critic, game critic, reviewer, blogger and anyone any place that offers an opinion is doing manipulation.
Broadly speaking, any attempt to influence others through the deliberate application of intellect, for the purpose of achieving a desired result, such as an emotional effect, or a change in thinking or behaviour, could be interpreted as a form of manipulation. It's perhaps merely a matter of how we choose to perceive the circumstances, and the degree of artifice, which should determine the malevolence of such efforts. We are constantly subject to vying attempts -- some of which we are only dimly aware at times -- by various factions, to influence our behaviour as members of a society. There is much manipulation in the world, and not all of it is motivated by evil, but rather, most often, by the personal interests of an individual or group . . . .


 
Last edited:
Broadly speaking, any attempt to influence others through the deliberate application of intellect, for the purpose of achieving a desired result, such as an emotional effect, or a change in thinking or behaviour, could be interpreted as a form of manipulation. It's perhaps merely a matter of how we choose to perceive the circumstances, and the degree of artifice, which should determine the malevolence of such efforts. We are constantly subject to vying attempts -- some of which we are only dimly aware at times -- by various factions, to influence our behaviour as members of a society. There is much manipulation in the world, and not all of it is motivated by evil, but rather, most often, by the personal interests of an individual or group . . . .

Of course. But in the end in order for it to actually be manipulation the target must have been manipulated. And that means they ended up doing something they had no intention of actually doing.

So in the games did the creators of the games intend Geralt to have a relationship with Triss? Or more accurately did Geralt end up in a relationship out of his free will? If Geralt made the choice to have a relationship based on his free will there can be no manipulation.

Since its a game I can argue that for some they would have gone with Triss no matter what was said by Triss. That then means the only point of possible manipulation is the beginning of TW2. This was the only point where the player did not have "free choice". Now was it ordained by the writers? If so then both Geralt and Triss are possible victims of manipulation by the writers. But only if Geralt and Triss if real persons would never have ended up in a relationship.
 
Since its a game I can argue that for some they would have gone with Triss no matter what was said by Triss. That then means the only point of possible manipulation is the beginning of TW2. This was the only point where the player did not have "free choice". Now was it ordained by the writers? If so then both Geralt and Triss are possible victims of manipulation by the writers. But only if Geralt and Triss if real persons would never have ended up in a relationship.
The degree of realism in the games is inherently limited by the intentions and capabilities of the writers and their medium. That is true of all storytelling. The simulation is an artificial one, after all, which is shaped by their designs and interpretations of the characters and situations. (All characters are the subjects of their authors' fancies.) That said, however, since the writers did allow for multiple choices and outcomes (with the admitted exception of Assassins of Kings), it seems safe to assume they thought these at least plausible situations. Since they made it possible to ignore Triss' advances, and choose Yen, or even no-one, we are not obliged to accept that a relationship with Triss was forced or contrived, if we prefer to select another of the game's paths -- all of which the writers created as potential 'realities'.
 
Last edited:
I'm not for changing the title of the thread, because as it is currently worded, it makes it clear that the poles of opinion about Triss's character are exaggerated in order to suggest that reality lies somewhere in between.

Real-world amnesia doesn't make a convincing context for analyzing Geralt's and Triss's interactions. Geralt never had any condition approximating real-world amnesia, retrograde, dissociative, or any other. To be more flippant about it than the writers deserve, he had Hollywood amnesia. It is a valid literary device, but it is clearly a device. It also means real-world therapies for amnesia do not apply. Only his condition as it is described by an authoritative narrator is true in the world of the games, and proposed therapies are to be evaluated by evidence for them in that same world.

We find five (depending on how you keep count) attempts to restore Geralt's memory. In the first Witcher, Triss advises him to create a new stable personality. She gives a reason for this that is not worse than plausible in context: she does not want to impose on him her ideas of who he should be. Comparing this advice to real-world therapy is not useful, because it is not advice for a real-world condition. Furthermore, it is made in order to encourage player decision-making in gameplay.

The second is triggered by the Crinfrid Reavers' mention of the raven-haired sorceress "Conifer, or some such". It results in Geralt having enough recollection of Yennefer to ask Triss to recount their relationship. We don't know how truthful Triss is when she does so; Dandelion's description of her recounting their "toxic" relationship is not that of the world's most reliable narrator, but it suggests Triss might have colored the story.

The third is the Rose of Remembrance. Triss offers to use the Rose to restore Geralt's memory. We later see the Rose used in a different way that suggests it may have had a different purpose. What we don't know is whether that was its only magical use, or whether it could be used as Triss described. An ingredient of that power might plausibly have different powers in a different application.

There's also the Elven Baths. The fact that Geralt receives a bonus of magic resistance if he abstains is often cited as evidence that Triss was using magic on him. It's not so clear-cut. The Elven Baths are a magical place. It could just as well be the magic of the place that influenced Geralt and Triss to make love there, or that Geralt chose to resist.

The method that was completely successful, of course, was Geralt's participation in the Eternal Battle. Triss was in no position to suggest this at that point in the Witcher 2 narrative.

Even taken together, none of this evidence sustains convicting Triss of trying to manipulate Geralt by a "reasonable doubt" standard. She did not violate any principles of psychology valid in her world. She did not volunteer anything about Yennefer, but did not withhold her knowledge when Geralt asked her to tell him. As to what she said, we have only hearsay, from a witness with a well-known tendency to embellish. The often-cited evidences of manipulation, the Rose of Remembrance and the Elven Baths, are ambiguous. In all, the charge against Triss of trying to alienate Geralt's affection has to result in a "Scots verdict": "Not Proven".
 
So many posts while I was asleep. A lot of what I'm about to reply to is out-of-date, but here goes:

In other words for manipulation to occur someone has to change the mind or "control" a person into doing something that they otherwise wouldn't have done. Do you agree with this premise?

Yes , but...
Unless Triss was reading Geralt's mind or knew as an absolute fact that he loved her. If her intention was to persuade him to fall in love with by withholding information on Yen, then she was being manipulative. It doesn't matter if she was successful or not, or whether it was necessary. And, of course, there's not just the possibility that Geralt was already in love with her, there's also the possibility that, when given a choice, Geralt falls for Shani instead, considers Triss as a friend with benefits rather than someone he loves in TW2, and rejects her in TW3. Player choices muddy the waters a lot.
 
Excellent posts by Guy and Dragonbird, but I just want to say, I strongly feel the bonus you get for abstaining from Triss in the baths is indeed due to you resisting her charms. I saw no evidence that the elven baths are magical. Another brilliant touch by the devs that is easily missed.
 
Of course. But in the end in order for it to actually be manipulation the target must have been manipulated. And that means they ended up doing something they had no intention of actually doing.

As noted in another post above, there could still be an intention of manipulation, regardless of whether it was successful or necessary. But we do not have clear evidence of that either, nor of actual harm done - as this post sums it all up: "not proven". Of course, it is hard to tell what the intentions of a fictional character are. But at least we do not see actions one would expect from a master manipulator: a plan to withhold information that is presumably easily acquired from elsewhere does not make much sense, nor does clearly telling about information being withheld.

Excellent posts by Guy and Dragonbird, but I just want to say, I strongly feel the bonus you get for abstaining from Triss in the baths is indeed due to you resisting her charms. I saw no evidence that the elven baths are magical.

Although there is no evidence either that the "charms" resisted are actually magical in the literal sense, rather than natural. We do not see any spells being cast on Geralt in that scene. And of course if magic was used, perhaps it would not have been possible to resist it in the first place ? To see this bonus in context, here is the complete table of abilities in The Witcher 2. I do not think their purpose is to communicate important plot points to the player, and they are often meant to be funny. Thus, I would not read much into getting a "resistance to magic" bonus for turning down a sorceress, because there is no evidence that it was meant in a literal way.
 
Thus, I would not read much into getting a "resistance to magic" bonus for turning down a sorceress, because there is no evidence that it was meant in a literal way.

I always took that as a joke, the way you get an Assassin bonus for finding Altaïr's corpse. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But we do not have clear evidence of that either, nor of actual harm done

Harm or no harm, Triss' actions - hiding Geralt's past from him until she was asked point blank about specific things in TW2 - is at the very least a dick move, one which no one claiming to be a friend should pull.
 
Harm or no harm, Triss' actions - hiding Geralt's past from him until she was asked point blank about specific things in TW2 - is at the very least a dick move, one which no one claiming to be a friend should pull.

As said in the first half of the sentence you quoted, there is no evidence either that it served any kind of manipulative purposes. She could very well have assumed that he will learn about his past from others (such as his old friend Dandelion who also happened to be in Vizima - that no one talked is not something her character could predict, it is only a contrived device used by the game), and did not try to hide the fact that she does not tell about his past, it is something he knew and chose to accept. What would have been consistent with malicious intent is to give partial information while hiding the fact that it is incomplete. The explanation below, that is also in one of my previous posts, is plausible:

We find five (depending on how you keep count) attempts to restore Geralt's memory. In the first Witcher, Triss advises him to create a new stable personality. She gives a reason for this that is not worse than plausible in context: she does not want to impose on him her ideas of who he should be.
 
I always took that as a joke, the way you get an Assassin bonus for finding Altaïr's corpse. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.



Harm or no harm, Triss' actions - hiding Geralt's past from him until she was asked point blank about specific things in TW2 - is at the very least a dick move, one which no one claiming to be a friend should pull.

Triss took advantage of a situation, that's the only incontestable thing in this whole affair. I don't see any evidence that she had any malicious intent when she did it, although I personally find her actions misguided and ultimately hurtful to herself and other characters. If anything, she did what she has always done: she acted in accordance with what she honestly thought was a good/harmless thing, with a drop of selfishness and creepiness for flavour.

What a friend should or shouldn't do is another discussion altogether, I find. And, once something veers into the "my morality" vs "your morality" territory, chances are that people will simply stick to their respective guns without much leeway.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom