I've said several times I think she was manipulative, and I've never referred to the books. (I haven't read them). I'd also agree with Zyvik - the thread has been almost entirely about game-Triss, not book-Triss.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I've said several times I think she was manipulative, and I've never referred to the books. (I haven't read them). I'd also agree with Zyvik - the thread has been almost entirely about game-Triss, not book-Triss.
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.
In the OP, it is stated that the discussion is specifically about the games, that is why it also lists events only from the games. Not that I think including the books would make a major difference overall, but from what I have seen, the second game is perhaps the closest to them. And in TW1, one of the alleged major "manipulations" (not telling Geralt about his past) is in my opinion more of a result of bad writing (or, more precisely, a lack of planning regarding any future games) than the character being intentionally made manipulative. Neither the "honest" nor the "manipulative" theory does entirely make sense here in the context of all games, there are always inconsistencies because of one game - but not the others - having a world state where, for some story-wise unexplained reason, no one is aware of the protagonist's past.
Triss did see Yen die in Lady of the Lake. While she could assume that Yen resurrected along with Geralt, that's far from being a certainty, especially when the circumstances of Geralt's resurrection aren't even clear. What was Triss supposed to do in the first 2 games? Wait for a body that might never turn up? As soon as Triss discovers Yen is alive in The Witcher 2 ending, it's clear she breaks up with Geralt by the start of TW3 to stay out of Yen's way.
I'm also midway on this. I don't think that Triss was being manipulative as far as the politics were concerned, but I do think she was atttempting to manipulate Geralt in the first two games for personal reasons.
In TW1, I think she made an understandable but badly-wrong decision to take advantage of Geralt's amnesia and let him think that she was the sorceress he was in love with. I don't think this makes her evil, or a bad person, it was just a bad decision made by someone who was in love and saw an opportunity to see that love go somewhere. We don't KNOW if she knew whether or not Yen was alive, but I think there's a decent probability that she knew and went ahead anyway. So yes, I think that there was manipulation involved, in that she didn't correct Geralt's assumption, she encouraged him to "remake" himself instead of trying to find out about his past. I think she kept her involvement with the Lodge secret not because she was plotting with them, but as part of this attempt to stop Geralt finding out about Yen.
In TW2, I think that she did mean to use the Rose of Remembrance to bind Geralt to her. Again, as the act of a desperate woman who would now have been panicking slightly as Geralt was recovering his memories, and had found out about Yen. Still a bad decision, but not evil (by my definition anyway). I still don't think she did anything sinister as far as politics were concerned - I think she was lied to by Letho while a captive, and simply made the mistake of believing him, and I think that the Nilfgaardians were lying when they said that Triss had revealed information to them. They were the manipulators in TW2, not Triss.
By the end of TW2, my head-canon is that Triss's conscience had kicked-in, and, if Geralt had romanced and trusted her in TW2, that she was the one who ended the relationship. (If Geralt had been played as suspicious of her by the end, then I think he probably ended it).
In TW3, she's exactly what she seems to be, there's no manipulation or machiavellian scheming going on.
Witcher 1 is a mess. I agree with what I've seen others say about it, that they just substituted Triss for Yen and the kid for Ciri to make their own hodge-podge of a witcher story. Which is fine, I don't believe they were able to know for sure if they were going to make any more Witcher games.
That being said, I just played Witcher 1 and Geralt just tells Triss that he feels like he has a strong connection to her. He's right, they had a romance. Yes, Yennefer was at the top of his priority list (sort of) but he still had feelings for Triss. So... not sure she "let him think" she was the sorceress he was in love with. And Geralt's a big boy. He knows he doesn't have his memories and he still can make the decision to jump into bed with Triss. That is not on Triss. So, I'm with you in the "less manipulative" side of things... probably even less manipulative than you consider her to be.
You're right about it not being Triss who spilled the beans about the Lodge, Letho tells Geralt that it's Yennefer who tells the Emperor about the Lodge while she's in prison or whatever. Just played that too, so it's fresh in my memory. Makes sense too, since Letho was armed with that information as part of his plan and mission to disrupt the Northern kingdoms.
I personally don't get the break-up between Witcher 2 and 3. Triss tells Geralt all about Yennefer as he's on the boat with Roach headed towards Flotsam. He can choose to give her the Rose of Remembrance *after* all that has been revealed. Sooo... once again... Geralt is a big boy and he's responsible for that. There was no reason after that point for Triss to get her knickers in a twist, or feel responsible. I could understand that as maybe an option that should have been carried over between games, but not as the default plot for both choices from Witcher 2 (to indicate you do or do not love Triss).
I love a love triange as much as the next guy, but I think they could have handled that much better involving player choices throughout both Witcher 2 going into 3 (Witcher 1, again, is a mess and doesn't count imho).
So I agree with you, she's not manipulating Geralt in Witcher 3. There's just too many unknowns for her to have any kind of plan work involving Geralt. She didn't even know she's to see him again.