Jobs Support Register

Triss betrayal as remarked to by Radovid when you first meet him.

Triss betrayal as remarked to by Radovid when you first meet him.

Upon meeting Radovid the first time in his hideout, he mentions Triss's betrayal to the Lodge. I've only read the first three books. I'd like to know what this betrayal was. Thanks for any replies.
Orion66;n8333720 said:
Upon meeting Radovid the first time in his hideout, he mentions Triss's betrayal to the Lodge. I've only read the first three books. I'd like to know what this betrayal was. Thanks for any replies.
I suspect it was Triss not notifying the Lodge or Ciri's re-appearance and location at the end of the final book.
It may also be Triss testifying against a new lodge being formed in The Witcher 2, Triss testifies the Sile de -something- and another sorceress are responsible for the assassinations. Forgetting names.
I believe this only happens in TW2 if you rescue Triss instead of doing something else.
NukeTheMoon;n9220971 said:
I suspect it was Triss not notifying the Lodge or Ciri's re-appearance and location at the end of the final book.
It may also be Triss testifying against a new lodge being formed in The Witcher 2, Triss testifies the Sile de -something- and another sorceress are responsible for the assassinations. Forgetting names.
I believe this only happens in TW2 if you rescue Triss instead of doing something else.
Ya, not sure on all the details with Radovid from W1, but in W2 she tells Geralt after he rescues her that Phillipa and the other Sorceresses were basically locking her out of the Lodge because of her relationship with Geralt.
The plot of the witcher 2 happens 0.5-1 year after the first game ends at the point of meeting Radovid Triss isn't even fully in relationship with Geralt (also the player might choose Shani) I doubt the lodge already started excluding her or that this has anything to do with the plot of the witcher 2

Being a member of the lodge was very important for Triss in the books to the point of losing Yen's trust important
when she lied to them and risked being expelled could have only been about something extremely important to her also she was scared as hell of Philippa in the books

I firmly believe that even thou Radovid implies that she betrayed the lodge in the book timeline it is actually something in the witcher 1
If she lied to the lodge in the books story that would mean even with all their magic and political power the lodge couldn't figure out that Triss lied to them IN 5 YEARS while Radovid did
Even thou Yen points out in the books that Triss is a terrible liar and that Philippa is very good at seeing through lies

Might have been Ciri but at the end of the final book the lodge convinced Ciri to marry some prince they just let her to meet Geralt and Yen to say final goodbyes they didn't have to know where she went exactly they were just waiting for her return
And before that when they wanted to find Ciri to convince her Triss couldn't have helped them by telling where she is Ciri can just teleport so telling her location isn't much help Triss took her to the lodge instead when she could
That isn't exactly betraying or lying to them
And its unlikely any of these events would interest Radovid or that he would use resources to find out about it

I can only come to the logical conclusion that the reason she would lie to the lodge is about Geralt in the whole saga he was the only reason Triss would ever jeopardize her position or political power for also Radovid tells this to Geralt who wouldn't care for Triss betraying the lodge unless its for him as at that point in the story he was trying to figure out if Triss is on his side or is just using him for the lodge

I think Triss lies to the lodge about Geralt's amnesia think about it
If the lodge knew that Geralt had amnesia that would put him in a very vulnerable position as we know the lodge fear/hate Geralt so they might have tried to eliminate him using his newfound weakness (and Triss didn't want that to happen)
Radovid could easily find out about this since him personally and his spies were all over Vizíma while the lodge would have a trouble figuring this out fast enough by themselves without Triss telling since Geralt's closest friends like Dandelion Zoltan Shani and the wolf witchers who knew about this weren't exactly on speaking terms with the lodge
And we can hear what Triss says when the conversation shifts to Geralt with the lodge (Keira) as I remember something along the lines of "I should be able to convince him" nothing about an amnesia
And Síle even pretends to Triss that she still doesn't know about Geralt's amnesia

Phu explaining this took a while xD
The plot is just a tiny bit convoluted xP
Last edited:
Maybe it is just a lie, to try to earn a bit of Geralt's trust.

Or: CDPR changed a lot of the book lore to make the game happen. Maybe they also changed a fact, where she betrayed the lodge and it was not mentioned by CDPR explicitly.

Or: Radovid mean (in the hideout of TW1) that Triss didn't took Ciri back to the lodge after the pogrom of Rivii.
Radovid trying to earn Gerald's trust by saying "you actually can kinda trust Triss as far as sorceresses go she isn't as terrible as the others"

If Geralt wasn't fully trusting Triss this would just make him potentially trusting Radovid less too and he never cared if Geralt trusts him or not in the first place

Also some time later (or earlier) he also says that "you shouldn't trust Triss she is lying to you" why make up things intentionally to make her look better in Geralt's eyes if he will just try to turn Geralt against her like a sentence later

As far as I know cdpr was trying to stay as true to the original lore as possible and changing something so essential wouldn't have won many hearts and minds of the original fans of the series to whom they were primarily trying to sell their game to

She had no chance of doing that thou after taking away Geralt and Yen to an other dimension (or something like that) Ciri traveled to our world and met Galahad (as I remember) Ciri and Triss never met after so she had no chance of taking her to the lodge or leading them to her trail
Last edited:
Yeah but I mean, that later someone like Philippa could say "You should brought her to us, and not let her go with two corpses" or something like this. You can make something with that ;)

CDPr made their own story and made their own lore. The Witcher games are not close to the canon and book lore.
But it is okay, cause the games are great anyway :)
Yeah but than she can reply "and how was I supposed to do that? She can freaking teleport!!"
Philippa knew that the only way for them to control Ciri was to convince her Triss couldn't exactly force her either

Well close enough for me but imo if they changed an important event they would have at least mentioned it in some glossary or book in game xP
Well, this is not Philippa's problem, it's Triss' Problem, how she get Ciri back, she was and is bale to teleport the whole time. And as I said: I don't think this is true, I just try to find a reason why Radovid said this, next to the fact that he is simply lying.

And btw.: You mean like the change that neither Geralt, Yennefer nor Ciri could be in the game due to book lore.
Three of the main protagonist who are written into a story who are not able to there due to lore is a huge change if you ask me ;)

As I said I love the games, too. But those are two different lores (books and games).
Yes but if they understand why she couldn't do it than they don't count it as betrayal
And that's why Triss was meant to convince her because she could have just teleported away and not do what the lodge want
I'm sure that everyone who even heard about Ciri knew that Triss had no chance of convincing her to just go to the lodge after what happened to Geralt and Yen

I never said you fully believe this is true either you just offered a possible answer and I just explained why I don't think it stands xP
And he doesn't have a reason to lie I am sure at least he believed what he said was true

They explained how they can be alive and well and in the games thou even after everything that happened in the books they didn't have to change anything that happened up to that point simply continued it in a way that they are saved and there ;P

Not sure what you mean but than you can say that the prequels are not a part of the star wars lore

I don't exactly care thou I think everyone counts as lore whatever they want if they say they count the comics as lore fine by me or if they say they don't count season of storms or even lady of the lake in the original lore that's fine by me too xP
Last edited:
Wll there are parts in the story, especially in the 5th novel, that playes 170...200...250 or way longer after the events of the porgom in Rivii, and since this time neither Geralt, Yennefer nor Ciri were seen again (exept for Ciri a minute where she traveld to time and space and saw Nimue). The games take place after 5 years of the pogrom of Rivvi, and there is Geralt and a year later there is Yennefer and Ciri. This is a heavy change of lore.

So the game lore is different to the book lore. Quite simple :)

The prequels of Star Wars are lore, I don't know what you want to say here...
Nimue met Geralt later thou
But the game lore and the book lore is practically the same until the games start and the books don't have many things to say about what happened after anyway

Its described how Ciri defeated Leo B. There is mention of Milva Cahir
Many characters reappear and speak about "you remember when..." And describe something that happened in the books

Game lore and book lore might differ in some instances
(like in the witcher 3 Geralt says he doesn't know who Coral is when he should know her quite well from season of storms)

But its not like they have nothing to do with each other

And in the case of the this topic if the game doesn't specifically states something otherwise it happened like the books explain it
So I doubt Triss betrayed the lodge in the books timeline she wouldn't be a member in tw1 if she did xP
Nimue had a dream or a vsion about a white haired witche, no explicit words about meeting geralt in person. And even if you think this is real, then you proof what I say: It isexplicitly said, that Geralt died 105 years ago. He was not there in the world for 105 years. No rescuing of Wyzima from mutants, no helping find a king in skellige, no accusation of regicide, no Ciri who became a empress etc. all such things that would be in every history book, ballad etc. Cause those things never happend in the book lore.
Nimue and Condwiramurs found out the story of Yennefer, Geralt and Ciri ended in Rivii, after that they were not seen again.

The Wicther games are more like really well done fanfiction. Taking the source material and form it into someting new. Even Sapkowski said, that the games are no sequel or alternative ending. It is just a whole new story. There are the books and the games based on the books, but not continue the book lore. The fact with Geralt not being around after the pogrom is not the only fact (but the biggest one).
The White Frost, Triss' appearance, Radovid's age, Emyhr's wife, the Wild Hunt, Ciri's hair, Faith of the Swallow, The last Wish etc.
All this things are changed.

As I said I really love the games, but it is not a point of view or something like this, it is just wrong to say that the games are continue the book lore in a lorefriendly way :)
Nimue=Lady of the lake
I meant that they meet in the games multiple times xP

What do you mean changed about the last wish? You mean the short story or the mission?
Because the short story is mentioned by Triss in the witcher 1 and there is a book about it in the witcher 1 and 3 (not sure about 2) possibly written by Dandelion it says nothing about Yen's mind control spell but pretty ok short version otherwise

And the mission is alright they take down the djin way too easy (or I was just way over level) but otherwise a pretty ok mission and Yen has a wish for anything she could wish for more power Ciri to be there and found or that Geralt only loves her and instead gives Geralt the choice and takes off the leash...
I mean I'm still choosing Triss but maybe that's what you mean that's just a way too good deed Yen from the books lore would never have done that xP

OK they took some liberty artistic freedom or whatever

my point still stands everything in the games lore happened like in the books lore unless stated otherwise in the games so its not something that happened before the games timeline
Last edited:
In the games the wih is something about that geralt wishes always be together with Yennefer, this is different from the books.
The green being you see in Witcher 1 and WItcher 2 is not Nimue. Nimue is a human sorceress. The being in the games is a magical nymph. Two completly different persons.
Well, you can call it artistic freedeom, but those are still changes, heavily chnages in some parts. Brining persons in actio who are simply and with proof not there is a change. So your point is wrong cause the games defenitly cause it is staed explititly otherwise than in the books. Quite simple.
It's like you make a Lord of The things seuqell and Boromir is there again under the living one.
As I remember it is never explained in the books what Geralt wishes for word by word just the effects
And they aren't always together neither in the books nor in the games

Hmm... The name confused me than xP

But you can make changes and leave other things as they are
You can continue the lotr story with Boromir alive as long as its explained how he survived and what effects that caused and if you want you can leave everything else the same
Especially in a story like lotr where people are just brought back on a whim (like Gandalf) and where many characters have the power to revive
I don't see how this would make my point wrong :/
Last edited:
If Geralt wished in the books that he will be always together with Yennefer, then Yennefer would be dead cause the D'Jinni killed her right after fullfiling that wish, that was explicitly said in the books. The book was about saving Yennefer's life by bonding their fates. Nothing about being always together with her.

And well... from this point on I really think you are trolling. I gave proofs over proofs what is explicitly different in the book lore and the game lore, things that cannot coexist, and you keep saying it is this the same lore. If even Andrezej Sapwkoski said, that the games are no real and lorfreindly continuation to his books... he is the freaking creator of the Geralt-Saga, if he not knows, who then?

How can Nimue seriously try to finish Ciri's story and say nothing happens after the pogrom in Rivvi, when she was the freaking empress of Nilfgaard and the Northern Realms? This is a thing (asI said before) which would be in every history book, tony of paintings would exist etc.)

There is a reason why Sapkowski let someone said, that Geralt is gone since 105 years in his last novel, cause he is no fan of the games, and with this little sentence he did (another) proof that the games are not existing in the game lore.

Other proves are, that the timeline is different in the games, the witcher Leo can't exist due to book lore, Eredin and other riders of the Wild Hunt cannot be in Geralt's world with her whole body in blood and flesh, The White Frost is a natural catastroph in Geralt's world and no magical orb etc. etc.
But they aren't always together in the games ergo Geralt couldn't wish for that
And they cant always be together if the djin kills her and it can't kill Geralt too coz it can't kill its master
And at that point Geralt didn't believe in fate (only much later after meeting Ciri several times)

I'm not trolling I legit like discussing this with you
If you feel uncomfortable about it you are not obligated to answer
Yeah well coz in some instances it is the same lore even if it differs in some cases
But in things it doesn't differ its the same xP

And it would be weird to discredit Sapwkoski of his work but his bias against games is just annoying he should feel about it like the guy who wrote metro 2033
I'll refuse to discredit and ignore either lack of respect only leads to hostility

But if its necessary to take sides and there can only be 1 "true" witcher story I'll damn well be on the games side

Or Nimue didn't check the books coz she like speculating xP
And if Ciri is witcher she is hidden so Emhyr don't find her

Leo is not a true witcher he isn't subjected to any mutation he was just training in Kaer Morhen
they could have found a way later just like Avallac'h did
The white frost isn't a magical orb in the games either but as it turns out the white frost consumes worlds doesn't only happen is Geralt's world so it needs to be more than a simple natural ice age
Last edited:
You made my point, Yennefer and geralt are not always be together, neither in the books or in the games, so CDPR made a mistake by saying that the wish was about always being together.
And again, it was explicitly said by Krepp that only one wish will save Yennefer's and Geralt's life, cause afther the D'Jinni fullfiled that wish he was free and able to kill Yennefer, but Geralt had the protection of being his master/been his master. This is the fate he bound with Yennefer.

I answer the whole time, and you keep pciking out one out of a dozen proofs and try to turn it around, then I give an argument against this and you stop talking about that or bring up a comment like: Maybe Nimue didn't read the history books about the empress of Nilfgaard. I think you didn't read the books if you think Nimue would let out anything what is in touch with Ciri.
Yeah. In some instance. In some Instance wither is the same lore than Pulp Fiction, but it is not a sequel of it.
You can refuse it, but that proofs that you are out of arguments. Sapkwoski said the games are no lorefriendly continuation and this is fact. You can refuse it but it is the truth.

Nimue uses magic to find everything out about Geralt and Ciri. Even if Ciri is a hidden "wannabe" witcher she had found it out.
Leo is an adult man, and had his amulett, and didn't even made the "run" (don't know the english word). In the book lore a witcher-pupil made this run long before getting trough the trial of grasse, you are a child and you get your amulett first after you fullfiled your traing, trials all in all. So Leo cannot be exist in this way. And a person like Vesemier wouldn't train someone like that.

Play the end of WItcher 3 again or watch a Youtube Viceo. Ciri stands for a orb(power sphere whatever, and this is the White Frost in the game. And it is explicitly said in the books, that it is just a "simple" nautural ice age. Avallac'h een make a bit fun of Geralt by demystify the White Frost by telling him the truth.

So Aen Elle ever feared the WHite Frost in the books. it was never a treat in the books, (the unicorns were) but in the games the White Frost can "conquer" interdimensional. This is just made up for the game, to give the game an overly happy ending by Ciri being able to deafeat the White Frots, cause she wouldn't be able to deafeat a natural ice age.
Last edited: