The Third Way - Witcher 2 as a Neutral Character

[oldtobias]

The Third Way - Witcher 2 as a Neutral Character

One of the great things about TW1 was that you didn't have to follow the Knights of the Flaming Rose nor side with the Elves/non-humans if you didn't want to. To simplify completely, let the factions kill each other - this was not a witcher's war.

TW2 however removes this option sadly. At best you can tell (for example) Roche to attend to his own business and rescue the child-princess while you go after Triss if you want to, but ultimately to progress to each chapter you are essentially forced to take a side.

I would really hope that in a patch or in an enhanced version of the TW2, this witcher neutrality is addressed.

 

[Babli.480]

There is still neutrality. It just isnt an obvious choice this time. At least thats how I see it.

 

[jjavier]

I'd like a neutral option too. I think Geralt should stay neutral.
What I don't know is how to fit a neutral path at chapter 2.

Currently, Iorveth and Roche paths are very well balanced respect each other.
There are equivalent content for both paths. Same "amount" of locations, characters, quest, etc ...

To add a third path without hurting the game, they should make neutral path equivalent to the other two. It doesn't look as an easy task to me.

 

[Garrison72]

Neither game has a neutral option for every decision

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Roche's path is the closest to neutral because Geralt does not fight for Henselt, whereas on Iorveth's path he is actively fighting for Saskia's cause.

I do not mind the lack of a full neutral path, because considering Geralt's objective, not siding with anyone in this particular context is pretty foolhardy.

 

[eskiMoe]

There is still neutrality. It just isnt an obvious choice this time. At least thats how I see it.

Pretty much.

 

[Cyberfrog]

That's also how I see it. Roche's path offers witcher neutrality. Well, close enough to make me happy.

 

[SystemShock7]

There is a marked difference between the setting of W1 and the setting of W2 in that in W2, you are forced to take a path or pick a side as a matter of necessity rather than choice.

In W1, Geralt's goal is really fighting Salamandra, and both the Order and the Scoitael are there on the periphery, but Geralt doesn't need either to fight against Salamandra, and therefore is able to choose who to side with one, the other, or none.

In W2, Geralt is thrusted into a situation in which he has no real control of the events happening around him, and therefore no real choice to remain neutral in the matter: he's forced to take one of either 2 paths to achieve his goal of clearing his name and catching the King Slayer. If Geralt remains neutral, he never leaves Lavalette castle.

 

[Aaden]

I do not mind the lack of a full neutral path, because considering Geralt's objective, not siding with anyone in this particular context is pretty foolhardy.

That's the essence of it. Well said, ser.

The factions in TW1 didn't play a role in Geralt's objective, finding the one who stole the witchers' secrets. Therefore Geralt was able to ignore their war. This time though, Geralt is an outlaw and even in the very beginning has no choice but to help Roche or die a traitor. You're kneedeep into politics from the start, if you want it or not. It's not a question of taking sides throughout TW2, it's about survival and achieving your personal objective.
In fact, I'd even say that you'd rather have to complain that you can't really choose to actively help either, but in Act 3,

Spoiler

when you choose to help Roche/Iorveth or save Triss

 

[username_3519565]

Roche path + Save Triss is the most neutral path in this game.

 

[daddy300]

Natural way? Story in TW2 doesn't give you that choice you are there to find the truth one way or another.

 

[Keloo]

Agree with systemshock and Babli you aren't really siding with anyone, you just help yourself by helping them.

You see, you find out in flotsam that your friends are working for Iorveth and Roche, and you need your friends help to achieve your goal, finding Triss and Letho and clear your name, so you aren't fighting for neither of their causes like you did in the first game when you chose to actually help the Order, or the Scoia'tael.

The game evolves naturally so that you don't feel forced to support them, but to ask for their help. The ending of the first game suggested that you'll end up protecting the King, so in the second game you are stuck in the middle of a political conflict, but you remain neutral. And I would dare to imply that in the second game Geralt is using them, not vice versa.

And in the books he is stuck in the middle of politics also, so it doesn't deviate that much from the books.

But yea I agree, they could eventually give us a complete neutral path, as in Geralt siding with no one, but that in an expansion maybe, not in the original game. I would like an expansion that takes place at Kaer Morhen or Vizima, that would be fantastic.

 

[dementedsheep]

Well it doesn’t have a labelled neutral path but you can be neutral in it. Geralt needs help, he can't do everything on his own. He needs to have an ally and working together for a common interest isn’t the same as taking their side. You are essentially helping them to further your own goals. Iorveth's path feels less neutral since it is very tied up with Saskia vs Henselt and you end up helping defend Vergen but Roche's Path is pretty neutral, you are both after letho and most of the stuff you do is for that cause.
You couldn’t stay completely out of other conflicts in TW1 either, in fact it feels more like you had to pick a side in TW1 with the bank robbery. In the TW2 working with one side does not really make you enemies of the other.

 

[Keloo]

ou couldn’t stay completely out of other conflicts in TW1 either, in fact it feels more like you had to pick a side in TW1 with the bank robbery. In the TW2 working with one side does not really make you enemies of the other.

Yeap, plus in the first game you are warned many times that you'll not be able to stay neutral forever, you'll have to chose sides at some point.So the way the story evolved, choosing sides at some point was kind of imminent.

 

[goopit]

It'd be cool if there was a hidden choice though like Deus Ex:HR

 

[M4xw0lf.978]

Roche's path is the closest to neutral because Geralt does not fight for Henselt, whereas on Iorveth's path he is actively fighting for Saskia's cause.
(...)

That's also how I see it. Roche's path offers witcher neutrality. Well, close enough to make me happy.

I disagree on this point. Without Geralt's intervention on Henselt's favour, the Kedwaenian army wouldn't be able to assault Vergen / upper Aedirn. So he does in a way side with the "imperialistic aggressor", and knowing Henselt's contempt for non-humans, i don't think that Geralt would see himself as neutral (judging by the novels, where he has always a somewhat pronounced affinity towards non-humans. I mean, he even dies defending them in the rivian pogrom - so he would not just ignore Henselts racist tendencies).

So actually, both paths do not exactly qualify as neutral. Which makes sense, as Geralt is simply not powerful enough to be on his own in this time of war. He needs alliances to achieve his own goal, which forces him to compromise. But at the end of the day i think that the siding with upper Aedirn is more witcher-like.

 

[falheim]

i don't think that Geralt would see himself as neutral (judging by the novels, where he has always a somewhat pronounced affinity towards non-humans. I mean, he even dies defending them in the rivian pogrom - so he would not just ignore Henselts racist tendencies).

I am agree. But in the other hand, i think it's because geralt is neutral that he is defending both non-humans and humans. He is not working for the king nor with the justice, but he listen to his heart. And that's why he is welcome with humans and non-humans (see the Brokilon forest in the books).

I think that the witcher games should always purpose 3 diferent kinds of path. One in the side of humans/justice, one in the side of non-humans/rebelion, and one neutral. Like in the witcher 1.

 

[Cyberfrog]

I disagree on this point. Without Geralt's intervention on Henselt's favour, the Kedwaenian army wouldn't be able to assault Vergen / upper Aedirn. So he does in a way side with the "imperialistic aggressor"

Geralt protects people from and lifts curses. Perfectly legitimate work for a neutral witcher.

However, I also don't necessarily agree Geralt fights for some cause on the other side. It could simply be said that he's there for his friends. When they are threatened, he's not just goig to sit there (or flee). The point stands though, I definitely feel Roche's path is better for people roleplaying a neutral witcher.

 

[Username.]

Roche path + Save Triss is the most neutral path in this game.

Couldn't bring myself to do that, Roche's too big a bro for me to leave him by himself.

 

[oldtobias]

Thanks for all the feedback folks - good to see a discussion developing

Just to add to my original post got to thinking a TW2 neutral storyline could go (very, very broadly) something like this:

POTENTIAL SPOILERS


1. Prologue
- Geralt manages to overpowers Guard in his cell without Roche's help (uses Hex to get one guard to free him from shackles?) and escapes the dungeon. After already spying the elves in castle assault he suspects they helped the rogue Witcher somehow and follows their trail along the river to eventually reach Flotsam. He pursues them as only link to clear his name. Trail is beset with bounty hunters etc. Perhaps some mysterious figure from League of Sorceresses offers some aid in this respect (maybe suggesting working with Triss to give Geralt some clues to follow)...

2. Flotsam
- Geralt gets somesort of temporary amnesty in the town after arriving on the scene and saving the local commander's interests from bandits (barge/wagon train or suchlike). Geralt tries to uncover what he can about King-Killer in town etc while undertaking side-quests to raise coin. Due to his own status, always at risk of being targeted by bounty-hunters, Temerian vigilantes, aggrieved Temerian soldiary etc. At same time, non-human inhabitants of Flotsam would perhaps play a greater role in aiding Geralt at this point. Again, perhaps at crucial point League contact could reveal Triss's capture and hint how to regain memory. Dandelion to play a much greater role in this chapter than existing TW2 storyline.

3. Battle
Geralt is convinced by League contact to relive the battle to regain his memory. Human/Non-human conflict going on at same time is inconsequential to this ultimately. Geralt able to undertake sidequests for coin from Henselt's camp followers in area for example or other locals near non-humans area. Other quests in chapter could come from the League contact to discover more about King-Kiler/Triss's vanishing as well as getting various quest items to undertake the battle. Indeed, maybe contact tries to get Geralt to attempt to assassinate key figures, such has Dethmold, which Geralt would have to decide about; naturally this might also really begin to raise own suspicions about the aid/real motives of the league he is receiving

4. Epilogue
Geralt finally discovers elements (including own mysterious contact)of League behind Triss's abduction/King Killer's hire in conjunction with Nilfgaardians. Battle to save Triss, clear name by confronting King-Killer and League.


Obviously all of the above is very broad, very speculative and misses a huge amount of twists/content/character interaction and whatnot but I hope it shows with some work, a more neutral TW2 storyline could be worked into the storyline