While it's not as obvious in TW2 as it is in TW1, I still think it's fairly easy to discern how to play and what choices to make, if you decide on trying to maintain the famous witcher neutrality. I would like to delve into this (again), by posing two important questions. I also want to stress that this is of course my personal take on this subject. Everyone is entitled to disagree, if they really want to.
Would a Neutral Witcher Aid a Rebellion?
The first important choices is between Iorveth and Roche; whom to follow and obtain the aid from as the pursuit for the Kingslayer continues. To me, this is very clear-cut: A 'neutral' Geralt would not betray the person who is responsible for helping him escape the prison in the first place, making it possible for him to even set out on this chase. The help he has received from very early in the story, and the amount of trust Roche has placed in him, does not warrant Geralt suddenly stabbing him in the back and joining forces with Scoia'tael outlaws. This does not mean Geralt won't hand Iorveth his sword back, when fighting ensues; after all, the White Wolf we know is honourable, and wouldn't leave him to fend of an ambush all unarmed. But when push comes to shove, and sides need to be taken for real, then I don't see a neutral Geralt turning his back on Roche - a man who has already gone to great lengths to help him - and I definitely do not see a neutral Geralt actively helping Iorveth and Saskia out in Vergen. You can also look at it more practically. If Geralt's goal is to find the Kingslayer (and later, save Triss), he would logically stand a much greater chance at achieving this goal, if he is allied with Temeria's special forces, with Roche at its head, obviously with a good amount of resources and political pull, rather than a terrorist running around forests, who is even hated or disliked by other non-humans (as seen when he reveals himself in Vergen). So either way you look at it, the most neutral and natural choice for Geralt, is to stick with Roche for Act I and Act II. The only really tough choice here, for me, is whether or not Geralt will allow Roche to kill Henselt or not. In a way, both outcomes could be considered neutral. Allowing Henselt to walk is a politically neutral act, as killing one of the last remaining (strong) regents would further throw the Northern Kingdoms into chaos, and as much as possible, a neutral witcher would do their best to avoid this. On the other hand, if you play a neutral Geralt who is still personally invested in matters involving friends of his, he would most likely want to exact revenge upon Henselt, both for killing everyone of the Blue Stripes, and for violating Ves. Like it or not, the members of the Blue Stripes - and Ves, especially - have inevitably become something like friends of Geralt's.
Would a Neutral Witcher Choose a New Acquaintance Over an Old Friend?
In the midst of the political intrigue and Geralt's personal hunt for the Kingslayer, in an attempt to clear his name, there is one unforeseen event that changes the playing rules completely: The abduction of Triss. If there is one thing that defines Geralt, to me at least, is that he places his friends much higher on the list, than he does any sort of political intrigue or scheme. This is especially true for his older friends, those who have been at his side for many years; Dandelion, Zoltan, Ciri, Yennefer, and Triss being the fabulous five. When Triss is abducted by Letho at the end of Act I, a neutral Geralt would make it top priority to recover the stolen sorceress. Of course, this goal does not necessarily interfere with the possibility to stir up some political mischief, which is why a neutral Geralt could still help out to the best of his abilities in Vergen, if only this did not conflict with the former scenario, as he would have to betray Roche, first. Where the question posed here becomes truly prevalent, is when Triss is later captured and allegedly tortured and interrogated, by the Nilfgaardians. This is what begins the final act of TW2, and it is here the most true neutral choice appears: Would a neutral Geralt go help Iorveth free Saskia or help Roche rescue Anais, or would he turn a blind eye to either of these pleas, and simply rush to liberate his close friend Triss from the Nilfgaardian camp, where she is being tortured in who knows what gruesome ways? Again, the choice feels rather obvious to me. Even if Geralt may have formed some sort of bond with either Iorveth or Roche, and even if he might sympathise heavily with poor Anais being held captive by the despicable Dethmold; I do not see Geralt choosing either above Triss - lover or no.
So, there it is. I keep both my TW1 and TW2 playthroughs along these lines, if I want to consider them 'canon,' but I don't play like this exclusively. It's the amazing thing about these games; you are free to experiment and try out alternative approaches and make different decisions, and each time it will make the respective playthrough feel special or unique in some way or another. At the end of the day, I know which is my 'true witcher' save file, however. The struggle I mentioned above, in regards to Henselt, I usually end up killing the bastard. The neutrality may suffer slightly, but what I feel is even more important when playing both the Witcher games (and other potent character-drive games such as Mass Effect 2), is the personal investment in the story and the characters. If someone coldly executed a whole bunch of people I considered friends of mine (to some degree, at least), and brutally raped another, that person is going to die, even if he happens to be a powerful king. That's my take on it, though, and I feel I have rambled on long enough, so I'll just leave it at that.
Would a Neutral Witcher Aid a Rebellion?
The first important choices is between Iorveth and Roche; whom to follow and obtain the aid from as the pursuit for the Kingslayer continues. To me, this is very clear-cut: A 'neutral' Geralt would not betray the person who is responsible for helping him escape the prison in the first place, making it possible for him to even set out on this chase. The help he has received from very early in the story, and the amount of trust Roche has placed in him, does not warrant Geralt suddenly stabbing him in the back and joining forces with Scoia'tael outlaws. This does not mean Geralt won't hand Iorveth his sword back, when fighting ensues; after all, the White Wolf we know is honourable, and wouldn't leave him to fend of an ambush all unarmed. But when push comes to shove, and sides need to be taken for real, then I don't see a neutral Geralt turning his back on Roche - a man who has already gone to great lengths to help him - and I definitely do not see a neutral Geralt actively helping Iorveth and Saskia out in Vergen. You can also look at it more practically. If Geralt's goal is to find the Kingslayer (and later, save Triss), he would logically stand a much greater chance at achieving this goal, if he is allied with Temeria's special forces, with Roche at its head, obviously with a good amount of resources and political pull, rather than a terrorist running around forests, who is even hated or disliked by other non-humans (as seen when he reveals himself in Vergen). So either way you look at it, the most neutral and natural choice for Geralt, is to stick with Roche for Act I and Act II. The only really tough choice here, for me, is whether or not Geralt will allow Roche to kill Henselt or not. In a way, both outcomes could be considered neutral. Allowing Henselt to walk is a politically neutral act, as killing one of the last remaining (strong) regents would further throw the Northern Kingdoms into chaos, and as much as possible, a neutral witcher would do their best to avoid this. On the other hand, if you play a neutral Geralt who is still personally invested in matters involving friends of his, he would most likely want to exact revenge upon Henselt, both for killing everyone of the Blue Stripes, and for violating Ves. Like it or not, the members of the Blue Stripes - and Ves, especially - have inevitably become something like friends of Geralt's.
Would a Neutral Witcher Choose a New Acquaintance Over an Old Friend?
In the midst of the political intrigue and Geralt's personal hunt for the Kingslayer, in an attempt to clear his name, there is one unforeseen event that changes the playing rules completely: The abduction of Triss. If there is one thing that defines Geralt, to me at least, is that he places his friends much higher on the list, than he does any sort of political intrigue or scheme. This is especially true for his older friends, those who have been at his side for many years; Dandelion, Zoltan, Ciri, Yennefer, and Triss being the fabulous five. When Triss is abducted by Letho at the end of Act I, a neutral Geralt would make it top priority to recover the stolen sorceress. Of course, this goal does not necessarily interfere with the possibility to stir up some political mischief, which is why a neutral Geralt could still help out to the best of his abilities in Vergen, if only this did not conflict with the former scenario, as he would have to betray Roche, first. Where the question posed here becomes truly prevalent, is when Triss is later captured and allegedly tortured and interrogated, by the Nilfgaardians. This is what begins the final act of TW2, and it is here the most true neutral choice appears: Would a neutral Geralt go help Iorveth free Saskia or help Roche rescue Anais, or would he turn a blind eye to either of these pleas, and simply rush to liberate his close friend Triss from the Nilfgaardian camp, where she is being tortured in who knows what gruesome ways? Again, the choice feels rather obvious to me. Even if Geralt may have formed some sort of bond with either Iorveth or Roche, and even if he might sympathise heavily with poor Anais being held captive by the despicable Dethmold; I do not see Geralt choosing either above Triss - lover or no.
So, there it is. I keep both my TW1 and TW2 playthroughs along these lines, if I want to consider them 'canon,' but I don't play like this exclusively. It's the amazing thing about these games; you are free to experiment and try out alternative approaches and make different decisions, and each time it will make the respective playthrough feel special or unique in some way or another. At the end of the day, I know which is my 'true witcher' save file, however. The struggle I mentioned above, in regards to Henselt, I usually end up killing the bastard. The neutrality may suffer slightly, but what I feel is even more important when playing both the Witcher games (and other potent character-drive games such as Mass Effect 2), is the personal investment in the story and the characters. If someone coldly executed a whole bunch of people I considered friends of mine (to some degree, at least), and brutally raped another, that person is going to die, even if he happens to be a powerful king. That's my take on it, though, and I feel I have rambled on long enough, so I'll just leave it at that.
Geralt removed the curse because it threatened the lives of both sides and to restore parts of his memory. He did not lift the curse to allow Henselt to attack Vergen.M4xw0lf said:
What he did was convenient for Henselt, but it was not done for Henselt.
You're probably right, but I can't bring myself to abandon that little girl just to save Triss since I kind of blame Triss for the whole situation in the first place. If she had just told Geralt what she suspected about Sile and Phillipa then I'm quite sure he could have avoided a lot of trouble, plus that whole scene from TW1 where she was bragging about hiding things from Geralt and having him wrapped around her finger made me totally distrust her and not want anything to do with her. I didn't even think twice when it came down to that choice - I went to save Anais without hesitation.Kindo said:
And even when I loaded a save and rescued Triss anyway to see what would happen, it was like pulling teeth to get her to explain anything. You would think after everything Geralt risked to save her she would finally trust him, but she still tries to keep secrets about what's really going on. It just made me angry, and I really hope I'm not forced into a relationship with her again in TW3 (I picked Shani in TW1 for my official replay because of that scene I mentioned before which made me very suspicious of Triss, so it was a bit jarring to start off TW2 in bed with Triss. I can accept that Shani's not there, but I would have liked the option to avoid Triss XD).
And then on my Iorveth play-through I saved Saskia instead of Triss. It's hard to say what I would have done if it was my first time playing because I already knew Letho would save Triss, but I think I would have saved Saskia anyway because I like her a lot more, and she's a freaking dragon so that's instant bonus points in her favor
Yeah, plus Saskia wanted the curse lifted too. She even gives Geralt the sword and lets him get the other artifact that he needs which is on her side of the mist. Both parties wanted the curse lifted, so Geralt wasn't taking sides by breaking the curse.Kindo said:
You could view Iorveth's path as neutral, in that you are infiltrating the ranks of the Kingslayers accomplice to get closer to the assassin and are afterwards merely standing by your friends in Vergen as Geralt is wont to do. The strength of the witcher is that every approach and path offered to the player is logical and well reasoned, whether you play Geralt as an idealist, a realist or anything between.
I agreeBlothulfur said:
The game was definitely written with such care and attention to detail that I could see valid reasons for pretty much every choice in the game, and all of the consequences are fair and make sense in retrospect (although I certainly could not predict what would happen in advance ). There are some choices that seem more right to me, but that's purely due to my own preferences and which characters I like the most. The game itself does not seem biased towards any of the choices, and there isn't anything that happens where I felt like the game was unfairly punishing me for my decision (unlike a lot of other games which have seemingly arbitrary definitions of right and wrong, and are smug about punishing the player for choosing the wrong choice).I pick the "bros before hoes" option in both paths too.HomemComH said:
You're actually saving Anais and Saskia for those choices, so the women win anywayIllusiveVorcha said:I pick the "bros before hoes" option in both paths too.
When I first played the game and Saskia asked why Geralt was helping, I was thinking to myself, "Because there is no neutral path" but then I thought about it. Given the premise of the game, Geralt inherently had to gain some politically based allies. A Witcher accused of killing a king isn't going to last long on his own. Besides, I feel like it actually fits with how oftentimes Geralt isn't able to choose the option he truly wants, or that what seems like the best choice at the time goes badly. He might want to remain neutral, but when a king that answers to nobody says, "Do it or I'll have you executed" the choice is clear.
This is a very interesting viewpoint (and one that I know others share with you). It's true that Triss has given more than enough reason for players to distrust her, to whatever extent, and this obviously influences the choices made in the game(s). It is entirely feasible for Geralt to have very much changed his mind about Triss (memory loss resets a lot of things), especially considering the suspicious behaviour she sometimes displays. In such a case, it is a bit harsh, but still logical to leave Triss to her fate in Loc Muinne, and focus on helping someone else who might - at the time - seem more trustworthy (such as Iorveth or Roche), or to go for the bleeding hearts angle and come to the rescue of poor Anais. As you mention, Geralt does not know that neither Anais, Saskia, nor Triss will 'be alright' if he ignores either in the final act; as far as he knows, the choice he makes during the final act is a matter of life and death. Hmm... tricky, tricky.WardDragon said:
Oh, absolutely. I never got that far into the reasoning of Iorveth>Roche, myself, as I always get stuck at the thought that I am betraying the latter; but what you suggest still makes sense.WardDragon said:
Thanks. As we can see from various postings in this thread, however, there are ways to argue the 'neutral witcher' path for almost any of the choices given in the story. The mark of a truly brilliant RPG; the kind which so rarely is made these days.WardDragon said:
Striving to be neutral in politics is one thing, but if you want to be a friend, you can not be neutral to their struggles. That is why my Geralt always ends up supporting freedom fighters, even though he tries to stay out of it as much as possible. They are friends to his friends and in the end, you must help your friends or desert them.
hi, interesting topic, i allways enjoy this kind of discusions , just wanted to say that its not the first time it has been discused, take a look at this, there u can see some more opinions and points that people has not mentioned here yet....
http://en.thewitcher.com/forum/index.php?/topic/24512-neutral-path-on-tw2may-content-spoilers/
, just wanted to say that its not the first time it has been discused, take a look at this, there u can see some more opinions and points that people has not mentioned here yet.... http://en.thewitcher.com/forum/index.php?/topic/24512-neutral-path-on-tw2may-content-spoilers/
ExactlyKindo said:
Although my original post probably came across a bit colder than I meant it Even though I don't like Triss and I don't want my Geralt to be in a relationship with her, I didn't want Triss to die. I simply decided that Anais hadn't done anything wrong and needed my help more, so I needed to save her which meant letting Triss fend for herself. I was relieved to find that Letho had rescued Triss instead. That factored into my decision to spare Letho because it showed he wasn't cruel (plus at the beginning he went out of his way to avoid hurting the children during the assassination, and he really didn't seem like he wanted to hurt Geralt at any point during the game).On a side note, during the rescue Triss mission there are dialogue options of Geralt saying he doesn't trust her and she could have saved him a lot of trouble by telling him things earlier. Obviously people don't have to choose those options, but the fact that the options are there says to me that CDPR intentionally put in just enough evidence that a player would have valid reasons for trusting or not trusting her depending on what each player thinks is more important.
ExactlyKindo said:
I love that I can think of very valid reasons to choose all of the options in the game. It's great that the story is complex enough to give real substance to the choices. Other games feel so simplistic in comparison.In Witcher 2 you are forced to be political in many parts, because you already start the game helping a king in a battle, but you can many times avoid the political choices and make what a neutral Witcher would do.
Why the knight of the Order of the Flaming Rose fights Geralt in chapter 2, Roche's path? What does it mean?
Why the knight of the Order of the Flaming Rose fights Geralt in chapter 2, Roche's path? What does it mean?
It's a uhm... sort of a bug, but in fact it's related to what happened between the Order and Geralt in W1. Actually, that event in Chp 2 should happened only if you made certain choices in W1 and imported a savegame in W2, but seems that it doesn't matter if you import or not, that thing happens the samederiviageralt said:
.... Count Tybalt attacks you in Kaedweni camp, saying that he does remember your issue with Siegfried
I did not kill Siegfried in the first game and this knight attacks me and say these things, and don't understand why. It should be a bug, as Siegfried is dead by default, in Witcher 2.secondchildren said:
I never got that guy, for Siegfried is not dead in my import.secondchildren said: