The Yennefer/Triss choice in TW3

[username_2093396]

I'm trying to find a way to come to terms with something that is otherwise a deal breaker for me here.

The books never say the exact wording of Geralt's last wish. I believe he wished something along the lines of spending the rest of his life with Yen. That way the genie wouldn't be able to kill Yen as long as Geralt still lived.

Now, as of the time that the games take place, I think Geralt and Yen have both essentially died and then come back to life. If I'm right about Geralt's last wish, then maybe it was fulfilled when Geralt and Yen died together in Rivia, which would open up the possibility of Geralt no longer being bound to Yen.

Plus the main reason Geralt and Yen finally came together for good was to take care of Ciri and protect her. Now that Ciri is fully grown and really powerful, there's probably no need for Geralt and Yen to work together anymore.

So that's my reasoning on why Geralt might be able to reject Yen without necessarily breaking the books' lore. He would probably choose to stay with Yen anyway because the love might last even if there are no other factors involved (the magical bond or taking care of Ciri), but I do think there's room for choice there

 

[nvid]

It's not like Yennefer would ask Triss for permision or Geralt would hesitate to drop dat edhead bimbo out of the picture. Yenna would simply smack Triss in the cheek, call her a bad name or few and then take Geralt over. Triss was just an episode, Yenna is his true love. That's how I see it.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

The key word is "destiny". I mean, "DESTINY" in caps.

In the books, the characters shape their destiny and destiny shapes them. Love and destiny is intertwined. It's a willing, magical cooperation. So, Yennefer and Ciri are Geralt's destiny by his game of dice with the said destiny, and they are bound to each other through Geralt.

Why do we think destiny is immutable. If destiny is the ruling force in this relationship and this world, then why did it not rest when Geralt, Yen and Ciri were together at the end. This does not mean that destiny wanted these three to be together, but that Geralt was destined to die when he acquired Yen's love.

Ciri brought Geralt and Yen back to life, but they were not spared in the Isle of Avallach, and Yen was kidnapped. Then after a series of trials and tribulations, Geralt reunites with Yen, but he dies again to save her.

The evidence suggests that Geralt is destined to die whenever he is reunited with Yen.

But let's look at it from a different perspective. Destiny caused Geralt's death, but if the ultimate destination was his demise, why didn't it stop there. NO, destiny brought Geralt back, and who was there to nurse him back to life when he escaped from the Hunt. *smile*

So it seems destiny is no longer happy with Geralt and Yen being together, and it seems to be providing a path to salvation via Triss.

Thank you for bringing this up, I had fun with this.

 

[username_2093396]

NO, destiny brought Geralt back, and who was there to nurse him back to life when he escaped from the Hunt. *smile*

Vesemir!

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Yeah, Vesemir has always been the one to heal Geralt after his near death encounters. Very fitting

 

[username_2093396]

Yeah, Vesemir has always been the one to heal Geralt after his near death encounters. Very fitting />

Vesemir is like Geralt's father. He raised Geralt, and in TW1 he helped Geralt remember what it means to be a witcher.

What did Triss do, aside from manipulate Geralt into thinking his feelings for Yennefer were for her instead? I seem to remember Geralt having to run around making healing potions for her, but I don't remember her nursing him back to health at any point She teleported him out of danger a few times, but that didn't sound like what you were referring to.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

What did Triss do, aside from manipulate Geralt into thinking his feelings for Yennefer were for her instead? I seem to remember Geralt having to run around making healing potions for her, but I don't remember her nursing him back to health at any point /> She teleported him out of danger a few times, but that didn't sound like what you were referring to.

Well she did save Geralt's life twice in TW1, and she did nurse him to health sort of after the swamp tower battle. Then of course the game had to ruin it by having a forced sex scene that was actually creepy.

In any case, I very much dislike TW1 Triss, because she was *obviously* manipulating Geralt and it looked like she was malicious at it too. TW2 shows Triss in a more positive light but no less manipulative. But one gets the sense that she's being that way out of desperation, and not any malicious intent or genuine pleasure in scheming.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Vesemir is like Geralt's father. He raised Geralt, and in TW1 he helped Geralt remember what it means to be a witcher.

What did Triss do, aside from manipulate Geralt into thinking his feelings for Yennefer were for her instead? I seem to remember Geralt having to run around making healing potions for her, but I don't remember her nursing him back to health at any point />/>/>/> She teleported him out of danger a few times, but that didn't sound like what you were referring to.

Okay, you're the queen of side tracking. It seems to be the case that Geralt is always saved by Triss one way or another. If their lives are being ruled by destiny, then it seems that Geralt and Triss are destined to be together and save one another. In fact, because Geralt feels an incessant need to find Yen, he's fighting destiny and hence is going to get into all sorts of trouble.

Triss is not bad for Geralt- she's interested in self preservation. She wanted him to give Alvin to her, but she had good reasons for wanting that.

And I did not think the sex was forced or creepy. What's there to complain about?

 

[username_2093396]

Well she did save Geralt's life twice in TW1, and she did nurse him to health sort of after the swamp tower battle. Then of course the game had to ruin it by having a forced sex scene that was actually creepy.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7g9mayPZo1qa6azro1_400.gif

That gif!

Anyhow, "nursing back to health" makes me think of an extended period of time where she'd be taking care of him and healing him. That's what I meant when I said I couldn't think of anything like that in either game (or in the books for that matter, although there was a time where she was really sick and Geralt nursed her back to health instead ).

In any case, I very much dislike TW1 Triss, because she was *obviously* manipulating Geralt and it looked like she was malicious at it too. TW2 shows Triss in a more positive light but no less manipulative. But one gets the sense that she's being that way out of desperation, and not any malicious intent or genuine pleasure in scheming.

Yeah, I'll agree with that That's pretty much how she comes across to me too, although I'd guess that I had a stronger objection to her manipulations since my mistrust of Triss made it seem perfectly logical to give Alvin to Shani instead (which I know you disagree with ).

Anyhow, I don't think Triss is malicious but that doesn't mean I have to like her either. I find it very frustrating that on one hand she is desperately obsessed with being with Geralt, but on the other hand she doesn't trust him enough to tell him what's really going on, even after she realizes that her Lodge buddies have crossed the line.

My Geralt was so fed up with it that at the end of TW2 he didn't think twice about saving Anais instead. He would have felt bad if Triss died, but he felt like she had gotten herself into the mess to begin with by confiding in Cedric instead of him, whereas Anais was innocent and not capable of defending herself, so he chose to go after Anais even if it would potentially mean letting Triss die.

I hope that TW3 acknowledges this. There should be a serious conversation with Triss in which Geralt explains his motives for leaving her to die, and I'll be very disappointed if she still acts like everything's fine even if Geralt doesn't apologize or try to explain away the importance of his decision.

This is why I think that, depending on which choices were made in the imported save, it should be possible to break up with Triss early on in TW3, and then once Geralt finally finds Yen that should be an independent choice (whether to stay with her or reject her and remain single).

And then of course for players who import a Triss save they'd be in a relationship with Triss for the whole game and then they'd have the choice to dump her for Yen, or to reject Yen and stay with Triss.

 

[Kallelinski]

You can't just throw examples out of context. He also killed a bunch of soldiers in both paths from TW2 who were just doing their jobs; he had a reason to kill both times. There's no incentive for Geralt to kill NPCs on whim.

Ahem, i didn't want to discuss these things, because i also think that's irrelevant and nonsense to kill any innocents, just wanted to show that there are many people who want 'free choices' doesn't matter in what regard even though it would be out of character, that was my point.

Hah, love at first sight is lust. But I am the sort who doesn't undervalues lust, so that counts for me. Geralt has also shown a good amount of lustiness for Triss, especially throughout the two games; that allowed their relationship to develop, and certain events allowed it to become more meaningful.

It's entirely possible that amnesiac Geralt "fell in love at first sight" with Triss. We can't ignore the possibility of this to simply impose an idea from the books. Ignoring it would make game narrative meaningless.

Well, your opinion, but for me, and as far i see it here also for others, the book is very clear in that regard and as far the book goes it doesn't show any doubt in his love for Yennefer. He even feels shame after banging Triss in the books, so that's also back.

When Geralt lusts after a woman, it is totally different described.

That's true, but Sapowski never wrote for Geralt to be alive again.

Ciri obviously revived him, otherwise i would like to know what she did with that sparkling white light out of her hand. Also there was still a scene after Geralt died and he felt pain, ever heard/read of a dead feeling pain?

I was also not exactly happy about that ending, but after some thought i think that Sapkowski did this to give them a place, where they can live in freedom without any disturbances, a safe place.

It's likely for someone with Geralt's experiences to change, start to behave differently.

As far the books go, he doesn't really like to change, that's several times an issue in the books and he is very reluctant in that matter.

Well, it's not a 100 years because Geralt did not know Yen since he was a baby. Regardless, your point is that their relationship lasted longer. I hate to break it to you, but sometimes it doesn't matter how long a person has spent with another. The heart wants what the heart wants, right?

If anything, we know from experience that Geralt can get extreme when he loves someone.

Given the event of the games, it's entirely possible for Geralt to be in love with Triss, and be conflicted about his love for Yen. It would be a disservice to the player to neglect this possibility.

Of course i didn't mean he knows her for 100 years (>20 years seem reasonable), but his character, nature and traits evolved in those 100 years, so if he get "that" back, his character, nature and traits also are back, of course this blend together with the "new" Geralt, but 100 years vs 2 years, do i really need to explain why i think those 100 years weigh more in my opinion?

It's shouldn't be assumed that the pre-amnesiac state is "more real" than the post-amnesiac state. People in these situations change, it doesn't make them any less of a version of themselves if they don't reset to their original self; thinking otherwise is not considerate or thoughtful of the autonomy of the individual.

Well, if we compare this to the books and games now, according to that the pre-amnesiac state is the short stories/saga, (i hope) without dispute the canon and original one, while the post-amnesiac state are TW1 and TW2, but now it comes the problem (i wouldn't even discuss this matter without that), in TW3 both are mixed together, so what is the dominating force now? Because you just can't rate them the same value, if his former self has a much more amount of experiences than his present one.

We are comparing here 100 years, longer than most humans even live, with just puny 2 years. Even if we just compare the relationships, it's still ~20 years against 2 years.

I, and i think most readers would do, would bet on the canon, original one. The whole problem wouldn't be there, if they didn't bring his former self into play. If you say now that the new Geralt is able to change and choose indifferently it would contradicts what the canon, original work says, so why even bring his former self back then, if his former self doesn't influence him anyway?

I don't really understand why it was necessary to bring back the former Geralt at all, if that doesn't influence him in one way or another, in that case CDPR could have been just stick to the amnesia Geralt, it wouldn't make any difference then. Bringing him now back just confuses players, who didn't read the books.

Why do we think destiny is immutable.

Not "we", you are confusing personal opinions with the book lore, for me it's convient that my personal opinion overlaps mostly with the books, but "we" can't transfer our moral values or comprehension of destiny, society or love on a fictional work or i should say, we shouldn't do that. There was already a discussion going on here about monogamy, it just doesn't work if we put our ideas and beliefs onto a fictional work.

Destiny is immutable, at least in the books. It doesn't matter if you as a real person doesn't believe that, heck, i also believe that you can change your destiny, but in the books you apparently can't, that's just like Sapkowski made that world, if you like it or not.

One of the biggest lessons for Geralt was that he didn't believe in destiny in the beginning, but later he had to learn that he can't fight it, he has to embrace it. As BarisM said, that's one of the biggest points in the books, the whole fate, destiny thing.

The evidence suggests that Geralt is destined to die whenever he is reunited with Yen.

By that he would have been dead several times by now, but he (and her) always escaped death by a coincidence except once.

He even lived with Yen for a year or so in Vengerberg(?).

And if your are particular about that destiny thing, according to the books Yennefer and Geralt lived forever on that island until the games retconned it, so in the end destiny was indeed well-intentioned for them until CDPR destroyed their dreams

Okay, you're the queen of side tracking. It seems to be the case that Geralt is always saved by Triss one way or another. If their lives are being ruled by destiny, then it seems that Geralt and Triss are destined to be together and save one another. [..]

So it was not your choice, but destiny brought you two together? Interesting opinion by you, really interesting

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Anyhow, I don't think Triss is malicious but that doesn't mean I have to like her either. I find it very frustrating that on one hand she is desperately obsessed with being with Geralt, but on the other hand she doesn't trust him enough to tell him what's really going on, even after she realizes that her Lodge buddies have crossed the line.

This is why I think that, depending on which choices were made in the imported save, it should be possible to break up with Triss early on in TW3, and then once Geralt finally finds Yen that should be an independent choice (whether to stay with her or reject her and remain single).

I don't what your experience has been with relationships, but people keep secrets even from the ones they loves. Actually, especially from their loved ones.

Secondly, did Yennefer tell Geralt about the Lodge? It's a secret society, and part of being loyal to it and its members is not disclosing its information to others. We can't assume that had Yennefer been present in TW, she would not have acted in the interest of the Lodge as well.

Also, I don't know if you've heard the news but Triss and Geralt are "separated" in TW3 as far as we know. One of my guesses is that the Devs are going to use the excuse of "Triss being busy with stuff" or the destiny crap to railroad the player into Yen...Okay, that was not a pleasant image...but I'll you with it anyways.

 

[KnightofPhoenix]

The more I learn of both Triss and Yennefer, the more I think Geralt should stay the fuck away and hang out with his buddies (Letho, fuck Dandy).

 

[Kodaemon5924]

Uh, unlike Triss, Yennefer basically told the Lodge to fuck off.

 

[Kallelinski]

Secondly, did Yennefer tell Geralt about the Lodge? It's a secret society, and part of being loyal to it and its members is not disclosing its information to others. We can't assume that had Yennefer been present in TW, she would not have acted in the interest of the Lodge as well.

Afaik Yennefer despised the lodge, even though she was invited to be a member of it.

The more I learn of both Triss and Yennefer, the more I think Geralt should stay the fuck away and hang out with his buddies (Letho, fuck Dandy).

Bros before hoes

 

[username_2093396]

I don't what your experience has been with relationships, but people keep secrets even from the ones they loves. Actually, especially from their loved ones.

Geralt nearly got executed for murder and Triss knows who actually did it. That's not a normal secret to keep from a loved one It shows that Triss is still loyal to Philippa even if it's at Geralt's expense. She's more concerned with protecting Philippa than with clearing Geralt's name.

Secondly, did Yennefer tell Geralt about the Lodge? It's a secret society, and part of being loyal to it and its members is not disclosing its information to others. We can't assume that had Yennefer been present in TW, she would not have acted in the interest of the Lodge as well.

Actually I can assume that. Yennefer hated the Lodge. They kidnapped her and tried to force her to join against her will (meanwhile weak-willed Triss did whatever Philippa wanted and refused to help Yen). There's no way Yen would have protected the Lodge. She might have genuinely not known it was them due to not being privy to their plans, but if she figured it out she definitely would have told Geralt about it.

Also, I don't know if you've heard the news but Triss and Geralt are "separated" in TW3 as far as we know. One of my guesses is that the Devs are going to use the excuse of "Triss being busy with stuff" or the destiny crap to railroad the player into Yen...Okay, that was not a pleasant image...but I'll you with it anyways.

True, but they also mentioned a so-called bond with Triss that can't be ignored.

I really hope that importing a save determines what state Geralt and Triss' relationship is in at the start of the game.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Well, your opinion, but for me, and as far i see it here also for others, the book is very clear in that regard and as far the book goes it doesn't show any doubt in his love for Yennefer. He even feels shame after banging Triss in the books, so that's also back.

There was a good amount of time that Geralt spent only in love with Triss (in the games), and since he was sincere then that also matters. I have said this before, the old and new feelings/memories exist together. You seem to think that the old will overpower the new, but we can't be sure of that. Just because he spent more time with one than the other? Love is irrational, not logical or proportional.

Ciri obviously revived him, otherwise i would like to know what she did with that sparkling white light out of her hand. Also there was still a scene after Geralt died and he felt pain, ever heard/read of a dead feeling pain?

I didn't know that, but that's good. The new story I referred to, anyways, was the entire conception and presentation of the story in the games. Here it's possible for Geralt to fall in love with Triss, whereas before it was not.

As far the books go, he doesn't really like to change, that's several times an issue in the books and he is very reluctant in that matter.

People don't want to change, they can't intentionally make it happen- it happens organically via experiences etc.

Of course i didn't mean he knows her for 100 years (>20 years seem reasonable), but his character, nature and traits evolved in those 100 years, so if he get "that" back, his character, nature and traits also are back, of course this blend together with the "new" Geralt, but 100 years vs 2 years, do i really need to explain why i think those 100 years weigh more in my opinion?

His character is one of someone who falls intensely in obsessive love. It's possible that he's in love like that with Triss now. Or at least he would be conflicted, and be left with a choice.

Well, if we compare this to the books and games now, according to that the pre-amnesiac state is the short stories/saga, (i hope) without dispute the canon and original one, while the post-amnesiac state are TW1 and TW2, but now it comes the problem (i wouldn't even discuss this matter without that), in TW3 both are mixed together, so what is the dominating force now? Because you just can't rate them the same value, if his former self has a much more amount of experiences than his present one.

There's no dominating force- there's just one Geralt. There was one before the amnesia and there is one after, that's what I meant. Like I said, he is someone who falls in love hard and fast, and he's quite irrational about it too. It would completely sense if he's in love with Triss now.

We are comparing here 100 years, longer than most humans even live, with just puny 2 years. Even if we just compare the relationships, it's still ~20 years against 2 years.

Please stop talking about the length of the relationships- why do I have to keep repeating this? It's doesn't matter how long you have spent with someone, if you want to break it off, it's gonna happen.

I don't really understand why it was necessary to bring back the former Geralt at all, if that doesn't influence him in one way or another, in that case CDPR could have been just stick to the amnesia Geralt, it wouldn't make any difference then. Bringing him now back just confuses players, who didn't read the books.

It's possible that he still might be in love with Yen, or at least conflicted, and as such can choose to be with her. It should be up to the player to decide because the situation is open for interpretation.

Not "we", you are confusing personal opinions with the book lore, for me it's convient that my personal opinion overlaps mostly with the books, but "we" can't transfer our moral values or comprehension of destiny, society or love on a fictional work or i should say, we shouldn't do that. There was already a discussion going on here about monogamy, it just doesn't work if we put our ideas and beliefs onto a fictional work.

I made a case showing that his destiny HAS changed.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Destiny is immutable, at least in the books. It doesn't matter if you as a real person doesn't believe that, heck, i also believe that you can change your destiny, but in the books you apparently can't, that's just like Sapkowski made that world, if you like it or not.

Alright, so Sapowski showed that Geralt was destined to die because of being with Yen.

One of the biggest lessons for Geralt was that he didn't believe in destiny in the beginning, but later he had to learn that he can't fight it, he has to embrace it. As BarisM said, that's one of the biggest points in the books, the whole fate, destiny thing.

Exactly. So why is he fighting destiny now by chasing after Yen?

By that he would have been dead several times by now, but he (and her) always escaped death by a coincidence except once.

He even lived with Yen for a year or so in Vengerberg(?).

Regardless, destiny seemed to has change plans for him.

And if your are particular about that destiny thing, according to the books Yennefer and Geralt lived forever on that island until the games retconned it, so in the end destiny was indeed well-intentioned for them until CDPR destroyed their dreams

It's exactly this attitude of trivializing the games that's not letting you rest.

THE GAMES ARE NOT RET-CONNING (not yelling ).

They are an ADAPTATION, they're meant to posses some sort of creative difference, otherwise it would be plagiarism.

The story in the games is just as meaningful and powerful in impacting the characters as those of the books (no, the number of years doesn't matter, don't bring it up again).

And since we are talking about the games, and not the next novel, we should pay attention to the events of the games and how meaningful they have been for the characters.

So it was not your choice, but destiny brought you two together? Interesting opinion by you, really interesting

I'll work with whatever I am given.

 

[tasir]

That was a wrong translation, she is not a minor character, but a supporting character. Just like at the Oscars, you get one for "best supporting actor" not "best minor actor"

Zoltan was a minor character, because he was just a "better" NPC you could talk to, nothing more.

Oh, I see. I misundestood that. Thanks for the info. />

Likely story, but will it be possible to choose between the ladies of the heart? Or all of the predetermined destination?)

Definitely a choice. Well the truth is, the relationship with Merigold is almost like a marriage, would be strange if it decide to leave behind because of a mission there. The developers have said quite clearly that the choice between love and sex lines overnight stays for the player.

What a great news! /> I hope it’s really confirmed.

Also, I found something interesting in another thread. I don’t know if anyone has posted this here (had no time to read the whole conversation). Anyway, here goes:

Spoiler

This is from Igromania Q/A.

Q (A fan asked)
4. What about Geralt's relations with women?

A (Alexander Pushkar', Igromania):
4. There will be long branching love stories, and the one-night sex options as well. Brothels included. But what to choose is in the player's hands, Geralt is up to anything.


So, I guess we will able to choose between women (or remain single.) Branching love stories mean to me that Yennifer won’t be the only (love) option to Geralt. Otherwise they would not have used the phrase “love stories”

 

[username_2093396]

Alright, so Sapowski showed that Geralt was destined to die because of being with Yen.

No, Geralt died because he tried to defend some innocent non-humans during a massacre. It had nothing to do with Yen, although she tried to save him.

Geralt sacrificing himself to the Wild Hunt for her was purely in the games.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Geralt nearly got executed for murder and Triss knows who actually did it. That's not a normal secret to keep from a loved one /> It shows that Triss is still loyal to Philippa even if it's at Geralt's expense. She's more concerned with protecting Philippa than with clearing Geralt's name.

It's nice how you believe things without evidence, but I can't do that.

Actually I can assume that. Yennefer hated the Lodge. They kidnapped her and tried to force her to join against her will (meanwhile weak-willed Triss did whatever Philippa wanted and refused to help Yen). There's no way Yen would have protected the Lodge. She might have genuinely not known it was them due to not being privy to their plans, but if she figured it out she definitely would have told Geralt about it.

Regardless, Triss is not some evil bitch. For audience of a mature game, you guys sure like to believe in absolutes, and be an irrational judge, jury and executioner. Triss is loyal to the Lodge for a reason- she needs them to secure her survival, and by this I mean her life.

Geralt comes back from the dead, barely the man he used to be, and you expect her to divulge important info right away? Is no else in this world supposed to have any self-interest besides the player?

I hope the player gets the choice- whatever the outcomes turns out to be, that will be Geralt's destiny.