Both, I think. And for me, that was one of the strengths of the game (and a weakness of games that rely on moral relativity). Going back to the good vs bad, we probably all role-played, since we made conscious decisions on whether we were going to be a "good" character or a "bad" character, or one of the shades in between, and played in character with that person. And it could be just as much fun playing a "bad" character, because the character and the player were very much independent of each other.slimgrin said:
With the moral relativity games, I think the developers were consciously trying to make us think about the fact that life is shades of grey, and even if you were being careful to think "what would my character do?", it would still be impacted by your own views. In a well-designed game, it still worked. In a badly-designed game, you end up with situations where players with strong personal views find it almost impossible to play against their beliefs, and players with mild personal views feel a bit uncomfortable regardless of the side they take. DA2 was a prime example of this. We play games for fun - I don't think it's a good thing for a game to make you feel bad about your choices, or to dislike your character. Nor do I like it when a game hammers the message "It's OK to do bad things for the Greater Good".
Both Witcher games allow you to play in character, but still like yourself whatever side you take. I think that's partly because Geralt himself is an outsider. Even if he joins one side, and expresses commitment, he's still neutral at heart. It's also because in both stories, the main quest isn't directly related to the human vs non-human conflict, and siding with one doesn't mean you end up killing everyone on the other side. So you can prefer Iorveth but still play Roche path, or vice versa.
