Sure, but that doesn't prove anything sadly, we need to ask the troll for a comparisonDystopia90 said:Thanks for supporting me.
Just like Geralt said, why should he do that? And yes Triss, that's kinda important, don't you think
Just like Geralt said, why should he do that? And yes Triss, that's kinda important, don't you think
Well, I don't. The way she talks, kind of slowly, instantly made me think that she was lying. Actually it was more obvious that she was lying than in case with Ves. I still do not know what Ves was lying about, or even if she really was lying. Triss did not piece a puzzle till she was there? What puzzle? It seems she still did not know it was Nilfgaardians all along. In this case she did not piece anything together, but was duped as everyone else.Kallelinski said:
In any case, Triss' conversation with Geralt contradicts other facts. Would she be sincere with Geralt now if she wasn't before? I don't think so. I am with Kallelinski on this - some of her replies are unsure, and really weird.
How could I argue with somebody who rejects the facts? Who rejects what the characters are saying? You could justify all of your arguments by just accusing Triss of lying, by accusing every other character of lying. I think that's a poor substantion of an opinion.vivaxardas said:
What Triss said to Geralt contradicts what other people and creatures said to Geralt, and to each other. But these people and creatures were not interested in this one way or the other, so they had no reason to lie. Why would a troll lie about how he found Triss? Why would Serrit and Auckes lie talking to each other? So here are two options based on facts: either you believe Triss, and then everything the troll and assassins were saying, was a lie, or they were delusional, or you believe them, and what Triss was saying, was a lie. I find it much more reasonable to believe them, and not Triss. I am with Dr. House on this one - People Lie.Dystopia90 said:
You want to believe Triss despite all the evidence to the contrary, just because she said so, and don't harbor any doubts? Be my guest. It's your choice, just don't tell others that they are irrational because they do not believe everything Triss is saying. The game allows it, and I am sure in TW3 you'll have your chance to choose Triss.
WTF? She´s his daughter surrogate!mariobros777 said:
And no, Triss is not the lesser evil compared to Yenn at the end of the saga. I´m half expecting Yenn also got a mind wipe from the WH, though, but Emhyr (another reason not to go after Ciri...) would likely try to get her healed if he´s kept in character.
Your interpretations are so biased (I can't believe people are upvoting them), it's possible to knock them all down one by one, but I can't be bothered to do that because it's a hot day and I just want to go watch some tv.vivaxardas said:
But okay-
- she couldn't clear his name because her king died, and along with that any of her influence in the court. She was also ostracized for being Geralt's lover.
- why do we think she knew Yennefer was alive. We know Sile never trusted her, and Sile was the one who told Geralt about Yennefer. It seems Triss just assumed that perhaps Yen had died, so what's the point of reopening old wounds for Geralt?
- I don't think it's fair to say she wanted to mind control Geralt. If she wanted to do that, she would have just done her magic without letting him be any the wiser.
- I don't understand your arguments concerning the assassins and troll; you're making some very big leaps, which are possible only because of bias.
1. Nothing of it changed in Chapter 3 - Foltest was still dead, her influence was still over, and she was still Geralt's lover. But by her testimony on a summit she managed to clear Geralt and overt a massacre.kitta said:
2. I do not say about her knowing Yen was alive.
3. It is a theory based on facts about the rose we know (it was ACTUALLY used to mind-control Saskia), and about Triss.
4. If you do not understand my arguments about info Geralt gets from assassins and a troll, how could you say that I am making a big leap, or biased? Shouldn't you understand what I am saying first, before you make such conclusion?
Looks, guys, I do not want people to hate me, all right? I just go where reason leads me. I am not out to make you unhappy with your choices. I do not think that Triss was a real bad person. She is naive, insecure, deeply in love with Geralt, but afraid to loose him, not very good in political games but tries to play them and finds a lot of trouble. She is sort of lost and unsure what to do. She has to lie because honesty may not be the best policy, not in her situation. I simply do not see any reason to idealize her, that's all.
Are you mad? Ciri is Geralt's adopted daughter, pervert....mariobros777 said:
Have you even read the books? How can you call Yen unfaithful, whimsical or immature? Do you even have the slightest glimpse of her character? How can you call Triss the "lesser of two evils"? She hid the truth from Geralt, that he and Yen are made for each other and that they love each other as much as a witcher is able to love sb. Triss means nothing similar to Yen to Geralt. Love is not about "choosing the lesser evil" or some other stupid pseudointellectual reason. Geralt loves Yen FOR who she is not DESPITE what she is. And this decision is about Geralt and who he would vote for. His strongest desire before his amnesia in the first game was to settle with Yen and Ciri and establish a "real family" as far as possible. Why should that be changed after he regained his memory? People don't change that much for no apparent reason. And love doesn't vanquish for no apparent reason.....
Everything you say is an insult to the characters and the story Sapkowski wrote. It's a shame.
I take this as a bad attempt at trolling.... :/
As a note: the stories of the games are ass compared to the books. Of course they are very good for a video game (among the best tbh) but that's all. The books are still very far superior in every possible aspect, especially character development and description. And at least everything in the books is canon....
The troll says that both fell from the sky, while the bald one was still fit and could run into the forest, the woman was hurt and apparently without consciousness, so how could Letho tell her in Vergen what happened, if she was already unconscious and kidnapped by the troll?
Well, one could say he waited until she came into Vergen and tell her then the story, but why should he do that? 1. Wait until she recovers and 2. tell her the secret plan?
If it was so important for Letho to tell her his plan, he could have rescued her from the troll, tell her his story and left her at Philippa's front door.
And i suspected that the lodge knew that Yennefer was alive, because Sile knew it. Yennefer is way too important for their cause to not know, whether she lives and where she is, but i never said Triss knew it as well. She could possibly knew it and hide it from Geralt for obvious reasons. Fringilla Vigo did the same in the books. But this is just an assumption based on what happened in the books, it's just curious that it is the same situation.
About the rose, i just don't buy it, it is too extreme for her. Maybe it should be her last resort to win Geralt for herself against Yennefer. It is just odd that the rose can be used for both, nothing more. I don't think CDPR made this without a ulterior motive, but i wouldn't interpretate too much into this.
She isn't telling the whole truth and i fear that nothing good will come out of that
Well, one could say he waited until she came into Vergen and tell her then the story, but why should he do that? 1. Wait until she recovers and 2. tell her the secret plan?
If it was so important for Letho to tell her his plan, he could have rescued her from the troll, tell her his story and left her at Philippa's front door.
And i suspected that the lodge knew that Yennefer was alive, because Sile knew it. Yennefer is way too important for their cause to not know, whether she lives and where she is, but i never said Triss knew it as well. She could possibly knew it and hide it from Geralt for obvious reasons. Fringilla Vigo did the same in the books. But this is just an assumption based on what happened in the books, it's just curious that it is the same situation.
About the rose, i just don't buy it, it is too extreme for her. Maybe it should be her last resort to win Geralt for herself against Yennefer. It is just odd that the rose can be used for both, nothing more. I don't think CDPR made this without a ulterior motive, but i wouldn't interpretate too much into this.
She isn't telling the whole truth and i fear that nothing good will come out of that
Yep. Geralt asked about Letho in Vergen, and no one saw him in or near the city. Letho is not kind of guy who can be missed in a city preparing for the siege. Also, the entire Lodge was looking for him. He should have been suicidal to show up in Philippa's city. That Letho would come to Vergen to chat with Triss? As Foltest said to Shilard, "it wasn't even amusing".Kallelinski said:
1. She didn't clear shit about Geralt at the summit- all she said was Sile was guilty of conspiracies. It was not her special influence which made people hate Sile, but the fact that people were suspect and against sorceresses to begin with, and here comes someone who gives them a good enough reason to hang one. Let's be realistic, some politicians can be fickle, and will change preferences depending on what favors them; they may not have given Triss's word any influence when it came to Geralt, but chose to do that since now her word would bring into check someone from a worthy opposition.vivaxardas said:
3. So? Is it inconceivable that one ingredient can be used for different things in different magics?
4. I meant that I don't understand how someone can be so bias without reason. You guys want to doubt everything Triss says, but for some reason you think the accounts of other people are perfect and completely accurate; sometimes people "lie" without meaning to and unknowingly, if they don't remember something accurately.
But that's not even the case right now- the dwarf says that the two people talked for a while, remember. I don't think the Troll mentions anything about these two talking, but it's possible that she lost consciousness after talking to him.
No, don't worry, nobody cares about this stuff that much. I also don't think your interpretations can make anyone unhappy about their game because they're weak at best. I agree about your assessment of her personality, but I don't agree about your interpretations of her actions.
Can we stop acting like Triss needs to be perfect in order for Geralt to love her? That's not a requirement people have in real life, so I don't see why it should be in a game portraying real life characters.
Triss is a really powerful sorceress. Geralt is an excellent witcher, but that doesn't mean he's immune to powerful magic, especially if he had his guard down with someone he trusted. If Triss really was evil and manipulative to the extent fo trying to mind control Geralt, then she is fully capable of doing that without him knowing.vivaxardas said:
Seriously, this thread is ridiculous because a bunch of biased people are just upvoting each other pretending like everything they say is true without question. All your arguments can be broken one by one, and I'm offering to do that. I just don't want to go searching posts in 16 pages of thread. Maybe I'll do that when I have more time.
Well, it seems people just get riled up about this, start talking about hate and bias, start saying their opponents do not give any reasons while we provide plenty, and in general rational discussion may simply stop.Dragon said:Don't be silly. Why would anyone hate you for sharing a different opinion? It would be a very boring discussion if everyone nodded in agreement after the first post.
I hate you for killing Saskia in your playthroughs instead.
I do not kill Saskia anymore as I promised. I actually want to see her in TW3.
1. During the summit Triss was in the same position as in Chapter 1. NOTHING changed. Whatever the reasons people had to be against sorceresses, they had the same reasons in Chapter 1 as well.Dragon said:
3. No. We simply do not have ANY evidence that the rose may restore memory, and we have evidence that it is used for mind-control. So all comes to whether we trust Triss, and believe what she said is true. In order to count Triss' words as evidence, we must first trust her. We can't use her words if we are in doubt, and no independent evidence is present.
4. I also do not understand how anyone can be biased without reason. But here it is not the case. There were so many reasons given, by different people, that to say that no reasons were provided to support our conclusion, is incorrect, to put it mildly. Btw, saying that someone's reasoning is weak without explaining why it is weak is ... well... weak. Yes, there is a general tendency in the debate to discard evidence presented by opponents that contradict one's view, but it is not a good way to do debates.
First, you do that, and don't just start with calling names, and insulting people.Dragon said:
I don't mean that you're a bad person if you're biased; that word just means that you're more likely to believe one thing is true rather something else which might be equally likely to be true.vivaxardas said:
Sorry if it came off as harsh.
I also never said that you didn't give any reasons. I promise I will show how these reasons are weak when I have the time.
No, it’s not about that at all. Personally, my only problem was that some of these conspiracy theories are too extreme to me. But as I said before everyone has the right to have his/her opinion. I'm with Dragon on this, life would be very boring if we all had the same. Also, we can still discuss this topic in a civilized manner.vivaxardas said:
BTW, I have been thinking and here is how I see this mind-control issue:
Triss says that the memory recovery spell requires some kind of preparation and thus Geralt has to wait a few days until it is ready. But if you remember, in Chapter 2, Philippa uses the rose immediately, without any preparation. You know, the famous Lesbomancy scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTBa2qzBW80
She cured Saskia in the first place and then used the petal, AKA mind-controlled the poor girl. She did it without any preparation whereas Triss needed a few days. Yeah, I know that Philippa is more powerful than her, but I do think Triss could have done the same, she has enough power to do that. You know, just one “magical kiss”, nothing more needed (I mean elixir, amulets and so on).
IMO, if she really wanted to mind-control Geralt then she could have done it immediately (as Phil). Otherwise what was she waiting for? Or do you guys assume it’s another (perhaps a more powerful) mind-control spell which needs some kind of preparation? I don't know, but personally I guess that the rose can be used for different things as well.
Also, do not forget that Triss asks Geralt if he wants her to go with him – “Do you want me to go with you?” You can reject her, sure, she’s gonna be sad/pissed off but respects your decision and let you go all alone. I do not think that a possessive, manipulative woman would act like this. I guess many people dislike her because she is keeping secrets from Geralt and sometimes acts very ambiguously (mainly in TW1). To be honest, I also don’t like that, but still cannot believe she is capable of doing such a thing like making Geralt her brainwashed puppy. It would be too extreme for her, I can image/assume many things about Triss, but this? No way. But we will see it in TW3, and I hope we will get answers to these questions as well.
As for the Triss & Letho issue:
Well, they did talk as the dwarf claims in Chapter 2. > http://youtu.be/TZyccTqGjA4?t=8m38s
Also, Triss was not unconscious – after they fell from the sky – just injured (If I remember correctly she had injured her leg). So they fell from the sky, was talking/arguing a bit, Letho left, and then the troll-pal came by and helped her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrY0OmKB6xI
Starts with 15:30. Conversation between Serrit and Auckes on their way to Letho, during necromancy ritual.
- It is Triss Merigold who worries me. If she betrays that Sile ordered us to get rid of Demovend things will get out of hand.
- Letho should have killed her.
- Sure, but apparently he only kills kings.
In the light of this conversation it does not makes any sense that it was Letho who INFORMED Triss about Sile.
From the conversation with the dwarf we learn that the man, who clearly disliked Triss and did no help her, was standing menacing and talking to her. Then he left, Triss stayed. We have no idea what Letho was actually saying. Did he tell her about assassinations? With this dialogue between the assassins it simply does not make any sense. He did not kill her because he promised Geralt not to harm her. What reason would he have to tell her anything? To tell her and make her dangerous for their plans? I don't think so.
If it was Letho, an assassin would say "He shouldn't have told her", not "Letho should have killed her".
Starts with 15:30. Conversation between Serrit and Auckes on their way to Letho, during necromancy ritual.
- It is Triss Merigold who worries me. If she betrays that Sile ordered us to get rid of Demovend things will get out of hand.
- Letho should have killed her.
- Sure, but apparently he only kills kings.
In the light of this conversation it does not makes any sense that it was Letho who INFORMED Triss about Sile.
From the conversation with the dwarf we learn that the man, who clearly disliked Triss and did no help her, was standing menacing and talking to her. Then he left, Triss stayed. We have no idea what Letho was actually saying. Did he tell her about assassinations? With this dialogue between the assassins it simply does not make any sense. He did not kill her because he promised Geralt not to harm her. What reason would he have to tell her anything? To tell her and make her dangerous for their plans? I don't think so.
If it was Letho, an assassin would say "He shouldn't have told her", not "Letho should have killed her".
Thanks for linking that video, vivax, I can see where people are confused now. I think this conversation took place after Letho comes back from Vergen, i.e. after he made Triss teleport them and tell her everything about Sile etc; he told the assassins about telling her of Sile's plans, and also that he left her alive, that's why they're having this conversation.
I also think Letho might have told Triss of his plans because his real alliance is with the Emperor, whose plans would not be fudged, but actually benefit if someone, like Triss, would cast the suspicion of kill slaying on another culpable party.
I also think Letho might have told Triss of his plans because his real alliance is with the Emperor, whose plans would not be fudged, but actually benefit if someone, like Triss, would cast the suspicion of kill slaying on another culpable party.
Uh, I don't think this distinction actually matters- no one keeps a secret like a dead person.
The emperor's plans (and therefore letho's) were always to get rid of the lodge as well as the kings, that is why Letho attempts to kill Sile at the end. Telling Triss of the lodge's involvement serves his purposes. If you rescue Triss, she ends up bringing down the lodge by confronting Sile at the summit, thanks to the information provided by Letho.