Team Roche vs. Team Iorveth *spoilers*

#1AdonistheDarkPosted 5/4/2012 6:57:40 AM
Which path has the better side-missions aside, I just can't see why anyone would side with Iorveth in a narrative context.

Perhaps it's because I didn't give him back his sword, thus didn't see the slaughter in Flotsam, but that kind of depends on me already having vaguely picked his side, no? There was no point, I felt, where he or his followers got to present themselves as more that terrorist thugs, so the decision boils down to how naively moved to action you are by the plight of non-humans. I think oppression sucks as much as the next guy, but...

A) Iorveth is such a dick. I don't care if I find out his mom was raped by the entirety of humanity or he had a particularly crappy childhood. Just based off of gut-feelings, he comes off as an unlikeable, smarmy, smug ponce. The fact he's actively helping my enemy and a civilian-killing terrorist doesn't help.

Roche may have a sadistic streak, but he doesn't come off as unlikeable, smarmy (ok, maybe a bit) or smug. Hell, he helps you on the Iorveth path even if you side with the universe's equivalent of Bin Laden and his archnemesis. That's not even mentioning him flat out letting you escape prison under his watch once he suspects your innocence. Can you say the same for Iorveth? No. No, you cannot.

and

B) I imagine Geralt at least feigns political neutrality and there's nothing neutral about following the Kingslayer's former entourage in hopes that Joan of Ar---I mean, Saskia will conquer through the power of hope and form a new kingdom of happiness and tolerance. Especially in a dark fantasy game. It's naive and counter-productive to the goal of trying to clear your name.

B.5) Moreover, siding with Iorveth is siding with the antagonists and/or their dupes. "Oh no! You mean to tell me establishing Utopiastan was nothing, but a pipe-dream and every one involved is a pawn in Letho's nihilistic scheme and Phillipa vying for power? Who could have guessed?
---
"Deus Ex Nanomachina" ~IGrokSpock
#2CragnousPosted 5/4/2012 7:19:25 AM

You are right in that Roche seems like the better option but all throughout the game, the best decisions to make are the worst ones because they are better for the most people. I would list all the decisions and choices but that would give away too many spoilers.

I chose Iorverth because he had the most information and was fighting for a cause. I also saw that he sorta wanted and end to all this "Saskia". Roche on the other hand just wants revenge and fullfill his duty towards his country. Of course Roche is your buddy and i would side with him but a Witcher does what is best for the world and not for himself.

**Spoilers**

Like at the end of act 1, you have the choice to rescue the 3 elven women or kill Loredo. Well guess what choice is better? In every game i ever played, in every movie i ever saw, the hero would always go save the 3 women but in the witcher, if you let Loredo live, he sells the town to the enemie and the town becomes a military town and you see the people suffer. If you killed him but let the 3 women live, the town is seen quite peaceful.

#3Quorthon109Posted 5/4/2012 7:43:00 AM(edited)
What I love about this game is how nearly every decision can be rationalized and argued for. There are good arguments for siding with both guys, but overall I probably lean toward Roche. I love Iorveth's path and I love the respect that develops between him and Geralt, but when doing a "What Would Geralt Do?" playthrough without future knowledge I think it's sligthy tougher to justify siding with Iorveth. I've made a short list of arguments for both:

Roche
+ Helped you escape prison/sense of loyalty to stick with him
+ Roche's primary concern seems to be finding the Kingslayer, so he shares your interests
+ Appears to be more trustworthy than Iorveth based on what you know

Iorveth
+ More well-informed about the Kingslayers/Roche may understand that you're still keeping your end of the deal
+ Supports non-humans/saving those on the barge would take priority over Loredo


That's all I can think of for Iorveth, but the first point for supporting him is a powerful one in my opinion. While Roche may have an advantage, Geralt is a lone wolf with his own agenda and either choice is just a means to an end. Like I said, almost every choice can be justified, it's one of the great things about the game.
---
http://i33.tinypic.com/1zny8ol.jpg
#4AdonistheDark(Topic Creator)Posted 5/4/2012 7:54:41 AM(edited)
I agree that every decision can be rationalized except for the two-tier Act 1 decision I mentioned. If you betray Iorveth at the meeting with Letho, it precludes the massacre which is possibly a major justification for siding with Iorveth. Likewise, if you do betray him, Loredo throws a festival and the plight of non-humans doesn't have enough urgency to justify siding with Elf Al Qaeda.

What I'm saying is, the game sort of takes it for granted who you're siding with before the major decision and engineers the game to best suit choosing that person. Or at least, the decision seems to hinge more on you giving a guy back his sword than knowingly picking a side. Maybe I loathe Iorveth and have a naive sense of fairplay?

Before the Iorveth/Letho encounter, is there really any justification for siding with Iorveth that doesn't require a huge leap of faith on Geralt's part?
---
"Deus Ex Nanomachina" ~IGrokSpock
#5tomo012Posted 5/4/2012 8:15:14 AM
While in Flotsom Geralt does have choices to become sympathetic to the non-humans. After all he is just as discriminated against as they are but most people know if they treated him like crap to his face they'd get killed.

So as far as Iorveth goes, one can easily see him detesting Loredo for what he truly is and how the soldiers and people treat non-humans and seeing as how Geralt is a mutant himself decides he's seen enough and joins their cause. Zoltan also can play into that story twist as well.
#6Pal 080Posted 5/4/2012 9:24:22 AM(edited)
You kidding me? Iorveth was the obvious choice for me. Roche is just a pompus jackass who hates all elves without regard, only after *big spoilers* his entire band of blue stripes is baited to a feast and then slaughtered at Henslets command do I feel ANY sympathy for his cause. (but that doesn't even have anything to do with non-humans...)

Elves on the other hand have endured nothing but pillaging, exploitation, murder, exile from their own lands, etc, at the hands of humans (ummm, natives much...?) for decades and decades. They're reduced to pathetic guerilla tactics simply because they have no free land, no supplies and are simply desperate now.

Roach only goes on and on about how much scum Iorveth is, how he hates all non-humans, he gets angry when people tease him, because his mom was a whore (child issues much?) and he always acts as though Geralt should do what he does.

Iorveth speaks of wanting to create a true free state, where humans and non-humans alike can live and work together... Roche simply wants to exterminate elves, and then prob move onto dwarves.
---
"If we can hit that bulls-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate"
#7AdonistheDark(Topic Creator)Posted 5/4/2012 10:15:57 AM
See, I didn't get any of that from Roche. He and Ves only make a single passing mention of elves/dwarves which was along the lines of, "I kill elves because they're the ones flinging arrows at civilians. If they were human, I'd kill them, too."

Now, perhaps one has to take that with a grain of salt, but neither seemed particularly seething with racist rage toward elves or dwarves. Roche seemed more concerned about the politics of Temeria, the influence of Kaedweni/Redovan forces (sp?), and going after the Kingslayer than going after Iorveth. Sure, he gives the fist-shaking "I'll get you, Iorveth!" type spiel, but he drops that pretty fast.

Iorveth, on the other hand, is characterized by his racism and regardless of whether humans are bastards infringing upon lands, it doesn't justify terrorism. I'm not for collective guilt or "acceptable" collateral damage. And considering he flat out says he hates humans, does his "I just want humans and nonhumans to peacefully coexist!" pipedream sound all that sincere? If Native Americans started killing white civilians because "We took their land!" would you be all defensive of them?

Lastly, Roche helps you on both paths which kind of contradicts your "he only wants you to do what he does" jab, no?

The choice seems to be a smug, racist terrorist that waxes on about utopia and ideals he doesn't actually practice or an pompous jackass who's at least loyal and straight up.
---
"Deus Ex Nanomachina" ~IGrokSpock
#8Pal 080Posted 5/4/2012 11:52:02 AM(edited)
Is this an argument...? I didn't really expect a counter breakdown of my reasoning... you obviously choose to see the bad in Iorveth and believe all the folk lore trash you hear of him, and you didn't see the super duper smug side of Roche... to each his own!

You don't understand the non-human struggle since your constantly referring to them as terrorists and citing actual terrorist scets as references... poor analogy at best.
---
"If we can hit that bulls-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate"
#9AdonistheDark(Topic Creator)Posted 5/4/2012 11:59:13 AM(edited)
You started your post with "You kidding me?" in response to my opinion. Are you really surprised I took it as an argument?

I'm not talking about who's better overall (though admittedly I began arguing down that route). I was asking, at the time the decision has to be made at the end of Act 1, who could honestly justify supporting Iorveth without knowledge of what comes in Acts 2 and 3. I even allowed the slaughter at Flotsam, which happens between the two halves of the decision, to be used as justification since I figured someone might opt to give Iorveth back his sword without necessarily having sided with him overall.

Lastly, I'm not calling all nonhumans terrorists. Just the ones who attack human civilians to "make a point." I could just as easily accuse you of making a Draco in Leather Pants out of iorveth ignoring all of his warts or excusing them.
---
"Deus Ex Nanomachina" ~IGrokSpock
#10CragnousPosted 5/4/2012 11:54:59 AM

Well from what i gather, it seems that for most people the obvious choice is Roche. (obvious may not be the best term...)

For me though, i found Iorveth to be a better choice. It did seem a bit odd and i have to admit that i am byas towards the human race but still, to me it made just enough more sense to side with him.

And true enough, my buddy Zoltan might have a hand in that aswell, you gotta love the guy.