13812 réponses à ce sujet

[blothulfur]

I can see the appeal of siding with the underdog and being righteously sure that you are morally right and thus any action you take however heinous is warranted but I find that most people who decide they are victims are somewhat self indulgent so it may be I am personally biased.

But I have no illusion that Roche has commited atrocities in service to his country, its people and the king and has probably drawn some grim satisfaction from said duties but as I have said before he is protecting the majority of peoples even if they do not like him or the special forces and his actions are dictated by superior and crown on pain of death whereas Iorveth chooses to wage a war on his own initiative when alternatives are available.

[Costin_Razvan]

Nope I am pretty sure this is stated in the game, should be able to find it.

I am quite interested if you do.

 But I have no illusion that Roche has commited atrocities in service to his country, its people and the king and has probably drawn some grim satisfaction from said duties but as I have said before he is protecting the majority of peoples even if they do not like him or the special forces and his actions are dictated by superior and crown on pain of death whereas Iorveth chooses to wage a war on his own initiative when alternatives are available.

Roche tortures people. It's his job to do so, just like Dethmold does.

The thing is. It's one thing to be ruthless towards the Scoia'tel or enemies of the realm ( like the La Valettes ) but it's another matter to slaughter innocent civilians, or rape elves because of their race.

I definetly agree Roche doesn't show any sort of mercy towards the Scoia'Tel...but I don't see him as a racist towards elves in general.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 juin 2011 - 07:44 .

[blothulfur]

"No other way sometimes". Roche's opening lines in the prologue after he lowers the towers gate are rather telling in my opinion this is not an evil or sick man who gets pleasure from his duties but rather a grim, stubborn guardian who always follows orders whether he likes them or not.

Any blame lie with Foltest in my opinion as a Roche is just a tool of the kings will.

[Costin_Razvan]

Besides dealing with the constant nuisance of the Scoia'Tel I don't see Foltest as a racist. That he allowed the elder races to suffer is just Foltest not wanting to disturb the status quo, but there is nothing to suggest he actively persecuted elves or dwarves during his reign.

Also, those supporting the Scoia'Tel for equality are fools in my eyes. You can't force that kind of change with a weapon in your hand...which is why Martin Luther King Jr. was completely against violent means to achieve his end ( and he did achieve it ).

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 juin 2011 - 07:58 .

[Vandergrift]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Nope I am pretty sure this is stated in the game, should be able to find it.

I am quite interested if you do.

 But I have no illusion that Roche has commited atrocities in service to his country, its people and the king and has probably drawn some grim satisfaction from said duties but as I have said before he is protecting the majority of peoples even if they do not like him or the special forces and his actions are dictated by superior and crown on pain of death whereas Iorveth chooses to wage a war on his own initiative when alternatives are available.

Roche tortures people. It's his job to do so, just like Dethmold does.

The thing is. It's one thing to be ruthless towards the Scoia'tel or enemies of the realm ( like the La Valettes ) but it's another matter to slaughter innocent civilians, or rape elves because of their race.

I definetly agree Roche doesn't show any sort of mercy towards the Scoia'Tel...but I don't see him as a racist towards elves in general.

You saying that it doesn't matter what he said because who he is, he MAY lie. But without prof of his lie with nor Roche nor Triss deny that he probably not. It is Important what that means.
Yorveth is like a Hitller "racial" genocide, Roche is like a Stalin genocide without distinction. He may not be racist but Pacification is worst than what is happening after siege it is purpose of pacification
In first play through i sided with Roche.


DEV team did good job with their game, u know flame war for NPC:whistle:

[Costin_Razvan]

Yeah it's great that your historical knowledge goes only so far as to compare Iorveth to Hitler and Roche to Stalin...lovely.

[blothulfur]

Agreed Gandhi suceeded in India where dozens of violent uprisings against us brits had failed and i'm not really blaming Foltest for being the strong ruler he was which in the northern kingdoms is a necessity. Foltest made a strong, prosperous and safe realm for the majority of his citizens and that is one of the most important duties of a ruler along with begetting an heir to maintain stability (which he was in the process of achieving).

I'm not going to comment on the Hitler and Stalin thing as that could get the thread locked Vandergrift, but yeah the game is damnably deep.

Modifié par blothulfur, 23 juin 2011 - 08:08 .

[Vandergrift]

Not everything needed to be taken for 100% serious.
It is only for show Yorveth killing humans and Roche he can just kill anybody, remember hangover?


With respect you know nothing about my historical knowleg.
My historical knowledge is concentrated Rome-Medieval-Pike&Musket-WWI-WWII i like war history thought.

Modifié par Vandergrift, 23 juin 2011 - 08:11 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Good for you then. Whatever my thoughts are in regards to Iorveth I wouldn't compare him to Hitler.

As for Roche, you keep mention pacification after a siege. WHAT siege are you even talking about Mahakam is a free city in Temeria and no one dares invade it. Roche was tasked ( as I see it ) to ending the Scoia'Tel threat in the foothills around the city.

blothulfur: Foltest was also the one king who united the entire north to fight Niflgaard. As I understood it he was the leader of the coalition that defeated the Emperor's armies at Brenna.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 juin 2011 - 08:16 .

[Drizzt ORierdan]

I see you guys are having fun debating the game. lol  

The way I see it, its just as RageGT said, it's rather pointless to attempt to find a "middle ground" or a more "rational" choice. Both main antagonists are extremists, and the reasons for you to side with one or the other, tell more about your ideological background and values than the choice in itself...
That was the whole point of the game, as the devs had stated many times.

Im still waaayy behind, kind of stuck in chapter 1, in Melitele's Heart quest last stand (the ritual). Those wraiths are totally handing my ass over to me. lol 
Im surely not so good with reflexes, but for some reason I cant see the health bars on them for most of the fight, so I dont know which Im hitting, the weakest or the strongest (Could it be a bug?). And they seem to pop up "again and again"... Is there a number of them you have to kill?  Im using Igni and Quen, plus sword enhancements, but it doesnt seem to work very much. The terrain (very steep hill) doesnt help either. Do any of you guys have any "ground-breaking" tips for that?
Thanks.

[Luxorek]

Guys, you're way over your heads ; ] Methods of nonviolence and civil resistance that were represented by Ghandi, King, Solidarity movement were succesful in OUR times, but they would not have worked in the world of the Witcher. The only way the nonhumans can survive in that kind of environment is to lock themselves in closed communities - ghettos (which they do btw). I guess majority of you have figured that out, but the fate of nonhumans mirrors the persecution of the Jews in the middle ages. Hell, dvarves and gnomes even excel in financies and operate in economy. The world of Geralt will get better in time - it mirrors our own after all, but the thruth is that if the elves continue to fight like that, there won't be many that will live to see that "better" future.

Modifié par Luxorek, 23 juin 2011 - 08:25 .

[Vandergrift]

Mahakam is a state not a City. Things after siege was to describe what i look like.
Translated from dictionary. Pacification - Form of terror suppressing revolting state, Done by army to bring peace i revolted area(in ugly way IMHO). Done in conquered land, but also on revolted people in country.
In wide scale used during WW2 by (guess who to protect topic from being locked, hint two contrys), layer in Korea Vietnam. In war and peace, in homeland or not it is genocide by the letter of international law. 
To be clear.

So nor Yorveth nor Roche are better I like them booth.
The CDPR have no intention of having better guy, just gray and different.

This game is DEEP!

Modifié par Vandergrift, 23 juin 2011 - 08:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

We have to remember one thing. Special forces were created as a reaction to the Scoia'Tael in the war with Nilfgaard. By that point, they were a necessary cruelty to counter act them.

Vernon roche does not fight Scoia'Tael only. He clamps down on nonhuman revolts as well (read journal entry), and I have little doubt that the Blue Stripes end up killing women and children in the process (such things are sadly very hard to avoid). Remember what one of the blue stripes says in Act 1 "Raping and pillaging, my favorite pass time". Now it could be a joke in very bad taste, but it's doubtful.

So I personally do not doubt what Iorveth said (though I think he is exagerrating). The Blue Stripes are very likely responsible for the death of nonhuman civilians. But, there is a difference in context. Vernon Roche targets nonhuman communities that revolt, and while there seems to be indication that he clamps down on them hard and cruelly, there is no evidence that he actively seeks to exterminate them. Civilian casualties, though always deplorable, does not mean an active desire to wipe all of them out.  And there is no evidence to suggest that the Blue Stripes do anything harmful to nonhumans who remain in line.

Iorveth on the otherhand sees this as a war between races (granted, he may change a bit with Saskia). And one he in fact knows the elves are going to lose, and yet he still fights on out of his own volition and is responsible for the unprovoked massacre of many human settlements (like that of Ves). Of course in his mind, since this is a war between races, no attack on any human is unprovoked, but that's the mind of an extremist at work.  And since this is a war he htinks his race is losing, he's like a fierce animal forced in a corner. He'll do very desperate acts, even if in vain. 

Both are ruthless. Both are responsible for the death of innocents. But while I think Iorveth actively seeks to do so, or does not care in the slightest (as in he thinks no human, or at least no human community is innocent), Vernon Roche and his Blue Stripes more or less target Scoia'Tael and rebelling nonhumans only (inflicting, pardon the term, collateral damage in the process). Maybe Vernon Roche and the Blue Stripes can be considered mass murderers (I'd contest this until presented with further evidence), but Iorveth is on a whole other level, because the nature of the war he is fighting in his own mind is very different. For him, it's an uncompromising war between races, which he knows elves are losing. He could have however changed with Saskia (who still calls him a terrorist btw).

But I personally like both. I prefer Roche for a number of reasons, but Iorveth is a terrorist done right imo, as in he is deep and interesting (as opposed to other games). In some ways, he is right. Elves are seemingly doomed to die out and a lot of it has to do with race (like what the elves did to those who were before them). In other ways, it's self-prophetic, maybe elves wouldn't die out if people like Iorveth did not exist.  But like I said, he sees no hope at all (he hates what happened to elves in the blue mountains). It's only with Saskia, the only semblance of hope he has (a weak one I'd add), that he might change his ways.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 juin 2011 - 08:39 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Huh?

Just going to quote the wiki then.

Formally, Mahakam is a fiefdom of Foltest, king of Temeria, but the Mahakam dwarves and gnomes maintain much independence, as any intervention would result in dwarves stopping the supply shipments and flooding the mines. The real authority in Mahakam is dwarven elder Brouver Hoog, who resides at Mount Carbon.

Tell me if that's wrong

Edit: There has never been a war where innocents did not die. Sometimes it was actively sought by the fighters, others times it just occured as an indirect result of it.

As Knight mentioned: I don't see Roche as someone who targets civilians while Iorveth does that. That is why I oppose him being brander a mass murderer as opposed to a soldier who is doing his job and kills civlians as a indirect result of it.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 juin 2011 - 08:34 .

[DragonRageGT]

Drizzt ORierdan wrote...
...
Im still waaayy behind, kind of stuck in chapter 1, in Melitele's Heart quest last stand (the ritual). Those wraiths are totally handing my ass over to me. lol 
Im surely not so good with reflexes, but for some reason I cant see the health bars on them for most of the fight, so I dont know which Im hitting, the weakest or the strongest (Could it be a bug?). And they seem to pop up "again and again"... Is there a number of them you have to kill?  Im using Igni and Quen, plus sword enhancements, but it doesnt seem to work very much. The terrain (very steep hill) doesnt help either. Do any of you guys have any "ground-breaking" tips for that?
Thanks.

Yes. First, make sure to keep the fight around those two pillars. If you get too near to Anezka and she stops the ritual to watch and cheer during the battle, reload. Thet battle will never end! She cannot stop the ritual. You only need to kill some 10 wraiths.  I'm getting better and better at that fight and my latest fight with an alchemist was really fast.

I place two conflagration traps at eash side of the battle field (facing the 2 pillars, one to the right, one to the left of them) and some 10 snares in between. Most helpful sign there is Axii. Charm one, gain some distance and when one comes towards you alone, charge. Wraiths are dexterous. Block and fast attack and dodge.. run when Quen is depleted and recharge. Run circles around the two pillars if you need some breathing.

This vid is old, not my best fight but still can give you some tips, perhaps? From my first Hard run. I've only played Insane since and that fight is not so dangerous anymore, as long as I don't try to take them all with the sword at once! 200% damage from back attacks can kill Geralt really fast even with Quen on. =)

The Witcher 2 - Melitele's Heart - Hard Difficulty

[jonesy1138]

At a certain point in TW1, Geralt asks Zoltan who should he side with, the Order or the Scoiatael. After a deep, philosophical dialogue, Zoltan ends the conversation with the following line:

"The biggest evil of all is moral relativity"

Firstly, both Roche and Iorveth are murderers, doesnt matter how many they've killed, killing one is enough. So saying that siding with Iorveth doesnt make sense because hes a murderer is silly.

Secondly, Roche doesnt "free you", he blackmails you. So you dont owe him anything, plus Geralt didnt do it anyway.

Personally, when choosing which path to follow, i tried to think as a witcher and i realized that Geralt probably wouldnt have cared about politics, Temeria or the Kaedweni spy. The only think he would have cared about is getting Triss back. Both Roche and Iorveth presented questionable arguments to help them (save the alledged-terrorist-elves or kill the evil, racist, criminal who rules the town and torture his associates). A hard choice indeed. So, when I asked Roche about Triss and he said "Forget about her", all my doubts disappeared (plus Iorveth was happy to help when i mentioned Triss).

In all, i couldnt decide who was a bigger ****son, so i chose to be selfish.

[Costin_Razvan]

Murderer is someone who kills people outside the law. Iorveth is this.

A killer is someone who kills with the law on his side, as in soldiers like Roche.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jonesy1138 wrote...

At a certain point in TW1, Geralt asks Zoltan who should he side with, the Order or the Scoiatael. After a deep, philosophical dialogue, Zoltan ends the conversation with the following line:

"The biggest evil of all is moral relativity"

If I believe in something that is "evil", or if I was pretentious enough to pretend that I know what it is, I'd say the biggest evil is oversimplification.

Plus, Zoltan ends up being an ally of the Scoia'Tael and doesn't seem to mind that much when Dethmold was murdered with no trial (something others pointed out). I like Zoltan and I think he's a very genuine lad. But philosophy isn't really his thing. 

Personally, when choosing which path to follow, i tried to think as a witcher and i realized that Geralt probably wouldnt have cared about politics, Temeria or the Kaedweni spy. The only think he would have cared about is getting Triss back.

That is a good way to RP, but it ends up conflicting with what Geralt does in Act 2 on Iorveth's path. He ends up fighting for a Free Pontar (whereas on Roche, he doesn't fight for either Henselt or Saskia). So I am curious, how do you rp it?

[jonesy1138]

Drizzt ORierdan wins the thread:

"The way I see it, its just as RageGT said, it's rather pointless to
attempt to find a "middle ground" or a more "rational" choice. Both main
antagonists are extremists, and the reasons for you to side with one or
the other, tell more about your ideological background and values than
the choice in itself..."

Murderer is someone who kills people outside the law. Iorveth is this.

A killer is someone who kills with the law on his side, as in soldiers like Roche.

Taking someones life = bad. Read Drizzt's reply.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jonesy1138 wrote...

At a certain point in TW1, Geralt asks Zoltan who should he side with, the Order or the Scoiatael. After a deep, philosophical dialogue, Zoltan ends the conversation with the following line:

"The biggest evil of all is moral relativity"

If I believe in something that is "evil", or if I was pretentious enough to pretend that I know what it is, I'd say the biggest evil is oversimplification.

Plus, Zoltan ends up being an ally of the Scoia'Tael and doesn't seem to mind that much when Dethmold was murdered with no trial (something others pointed out). I like Zoltan and I think he's a very genuine lad. But philosophy isn't really his thing. 

Personally, when choosing which path to follow, i tried to think as a witcher and i realized that Geralt probably wouldnt have cared about politics, Temeria or the Kaedweni spy. The only think he would have cared about is getting Triss back.

That is a good way to RP, but it ends up conflicting with what Geralt does in Act 2 on Iorveth's path. He ends up fighting for a Free Pontar (whereas on Roche, he doesn't fight for either Henselt or Saskia). So I am curious, how do you rp it?

Well i kind of fell in love with Saskia (Triss who?) , what can i say? Her idealism is just charming. I didnt rp Geralt, i couldnt make a choice and had to decide somehow. I didnt regret it, even if i agree with you in that you dont get to know the scoia'tael and that the battle isnt depicted well enough.

I see Iorveth as a good guy gone bad, but deep down hes still good, like Darth Vader. You understand this talking to him and watching his dreams. He wants to redeem himself and i respect that. On the other hand, Roche reminds me of Jack Bauer, he doesnt think, he just follows orders. However, at least Jack Bauer has feelings (although he doesnt show them very often), Roche is just so cold, not a single tear after his unit was executed...

Ironically, Iorveth is more human than Roche.

Modifié par jonesy1138, 23 juin 2011 - 09:41 .

[slimgrin]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

What do people think of the adrenaline abilties (Group Finishers, Heliotrope Sign, Berserk), I didn't find them all that useful when I was playing, because by the time they were charged I'd already killed every enemy but 1-3, and by that time it was almost just as quick to finish them off without using them. I was wondering cause I was considering a run where I just pick up upgraded Quen and the vigor upgrade from magic, footwork, position, whirl, riposte from swordsmanship and the bomb, potion and oil upgrades from alchemy. There should be just enough points to get them all and it seems like the end result would be much stronger than what I'd get by focusing on a single tree, any thoughts?

I liked Berserk. Group finishers feels overpowered and just too convenient. I prefer a more hands on approach to watching a cut scene. My third run on hard will focus on magic tree, but after that I plan to do something along the lines you are describing. I want to mix it up more, customize with abilities from each tree.

Modifié par slimgrin, 23 juin 2011 - 09:42 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

jonesy1138 wrote...
 On the other hand, Roche reminds me of Jack Bauer, he doesnt think, he just follows orders. However, at least Jack Bauer has feelings (although he doesnt show them very often), Roche is just so cold, he only feels hatred.

Ironically, Iorveth is more human than Roche.

Roche is a soldier, and not only that, but a soldier to a king who did more for him than his father. Who took him in and made him something. I don't think Roche follows Foltest's orders just because they are orders. I think he genuiely admires Foltest and it's hard not to considering his history. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that he loves Temeria, hence wanting to assassinate the traitor Loredo when no one ordered him to.

Roches does seem to be consummed by hatred by the end of Act 2 and till the half of Act 3. But that's because he loved his men. They were like his siblings, and unlike Iorveth, who does not seem to mind watching elven women die (not out of malice, he's just more ruthless / pragmatic), Roche loses it because he can't bear to lose the closest thing he has for family, in large part because of him.

But imo, he still recollects himself at the end (or in the end of Act 2 if convinced to leave Henselt) and still fights on to save Temeria when no one ordered him to (even if Geralt does not want to, he risks his life and storms the Kaedweni camp alone).

So I disagree with your interpretation of Roche.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 juin 2011 - 09:45 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Taking someones life = bad. Read Drizzt's reply.

Wait....you are comparing terrorists, common criminals, murderers to a normal soldier who on the line of duty kills someone because it's his job? Seriously?

Nice childish viewpoint...one that would get you quite a beating if you ever said that to a soldier who risked his neck for his country.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 juin 2011 - 09:53 .

[jonesy1138]

Could have been such a beatiful thread...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Roche is a soldier, and not only that, but a soldier to a king who did more for him than his father. Who took him in and made him something. I don't think Roche follows Foltest's orders just because they are orders.I think he genuiely admires Foltest and it's hard not to considering his history. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that he loves Temeria, hence wanting to assassinate the traitor Loredo when no one ordered him to.

Roches does seem to be consummed by hatred by the end of Act2 and till the half of Act 3. But that's because he loved his men. Theywere like his siblings, and unlike Iorveth, who does not seem to mind watching elven women die (not out of malice, he's just more ruthless / pragmatic), Roche loses it because he can't bear to lose the closest thing he has for family, in large part because of him.

But imo, he still recollects himself at the end (or in the end of Act 2 if convinced to leave Henselt) and still fights on to save Temeria when no one ordered him to (even if Geralt does not want to, he risks his life and storms the Kaedweni camp alone).

So I disagree with your interpretation of Roche.

Hmmm... you have a point. I had forgotten about the 'Our women are prepared to die...' part. I will do a second roche playthrough. Coincidentally, in my previous roche playthrough I chose the options that dont flatter him at all! I let him kill Henselt in cold blood, I help him butcher everyone in the Kaedweni camp (and castrating Dethmold), I let him convince me that Radovid is a nice lad, I tell him to give Anais to Radovid betraying Temeria/Foltest and defecting to Redania....

Basically, in my playthrough he came as a psycho and a traitor, whereas in yours hes a knight and a patriot! Words fail me when trying to describe this game.... i can only come up with mind-blowing, but it falls short.

Modifié par jonesy1138, 23 juin 2011 - 10:37 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Murderer is someone who kills people outside the law. Iorveth is this.

A killer is someone who kills with the law on his side, as in soldiers like Roche.

It's important to remember that in the IRL middle ages as well as in the witcherverse, the difference between a ruler and his men and a band of armed thugs is basically how successful and well-equipped they are. It's very much a grey-and-grey world, and arguably a grey-and-black one.

jonesy1138 wrote...
Basically, in my playthrough he came as a
psycho and a traitor, whereas in yours hes a knight and a patriot! Words
fail me when trying to describe this game.... i can only come up with
mind-blowing, but it falls short.

Haha that too. I think it's awesome that your perceptions of the characters change based on how you play the game, and are open to interpretation even within a specific type of path.

Modifié par DaveExclamationMarkYognaut, 23 juin 2011 - 11:17 .

[blothulfur]

This is the greatest strength of the witcher games in my opinion, they neither hold your hand or tell you what to do and think but simply treats you as an equal who's capable of making judgements and choices and suffering their consequences. It is refreshing to not experience the dumbed down condescension so prevalent in modern games.

And no i'm not blaming this on console users but the developers who underestimate them.