The order vs. the squirrels (spoilers until chap 3)

I really like the story in The witcher so far (having just started chapter 3) and how it presents difficult choices for the player. In particular I find the conflict between the humans and the scoia'tell (or however it's spelled) really interesting, so I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

Initially I kind of sympathized with the rebels, as I clearly found it to be racist and unjust to exclude someone from society just because they aren't human. So when given the choice in chapter 1, I allowed them to get their weapons from that trader (don't remember his name) at the river. However, after later meeting both Sigfried as a represent of a human knight and the elven leader from the rebel camp in the swamp I must admit that I find Sigfried to be quite noble and honorable (if maybe a little naive and single-minded) while the rebels starts to appear as being quite extreme in their methods - killing innocents in the graveyard and robbing a bank for example. Also their own views on humans are just as racist as the other way around

So what do you guys think? If possible I would like to avoid being spoiled about the plot futher than the bank robbery in chapter 3…

I tried to stay neutral as far as possible in my first play-through; on my second one I'm siding with the Scoia'tel. If I still have the energy to go for a third one, I will pick the Order. So far, the Scoia'tel line appears to be at least as interesting as the neutral one.

Go with whatever you feel is best. You'll end up regretting your choice in some ways, I'm sure -- and also enjoying it, if you're into "dark fantasy" where being the heroic knight who saves the day really isn't on the menu.

I'm finding this quite a dilemma, also and I give CDProjekt my respect for making this the case. At times it seems you have total free will to make a choice, but almost always, people and events emerge that nudge you one way or the other. I am desperately trying to remain neutral, but can't help wanting to slap the rebels with a chain mail glove, while I also found Seigfried a sympathetic figure despite being turned off by the Order's overly religious overtones….so it comes down to who you are defining Geralt to be. (This is where it kind of reminds me of Planescape:Torment)

I've just decided to follow my impulses on this playthrough and see where they lead--though they've lead to some contradictory and not always consistent positions on Geralt's part--that adds both to the immediacy and the concept of consequences we talk about but so seldom see in a meaningful manner.

Obviously it will take more than one playthrough to get all the marrow out of this story.

I like it, I just wish the results in some cases were more realistic.
I don't mind the devs pushing me one way then another as it can be a great story telling device, but don't the consequences need to be realistic also?
An example I am currently experiencing in Chap 3 also is in regards to the child, as I

Yet, we were given no option to speak such truths, which seemed to cheapen the quest.

In regards to taking sides I am still sort of confused, since even though I was remaining neutral in the bank, they kept saying I sided with Sigfried, even though I was just trying to get everyone out alive.
If they don't want a nonviolent resolution possible that's fine, though I prefer RPGs with nonviolent solutions as an option, the odd part is forcing me to a side that isn't obvious from my choices, again this could be translation or not.

It will be interesting so see if we learn where the rebels get their violent streak, since it's not evident in all of the Elder bloodlines or the info we have gotten so far.
Especially as you mentioned in the Cemetery, now that was weird, it was a tough choice as I was really pissed off at the NPCs but had to put that aside for the other choice.

Actually, Acleacius, there was a nonviolent solution to that particular situation (unless you count swatting kikimores violent).

Interesting, as I never even encountered kikimores, so I almost wonder if we're talking about the same thing, yet I guess some different choice I didn't realize could cause them to appear at the bank.
I may give it another try, thanks.

I'm pretty certain we're talking about the same thing. And no, the kikimores don't come up until after you've made your choice.

I'm with Acleacius on this one.

It is convincing, though somewhat forced, that one cannot get out of most situations without deciding in favour of one side. Now my problem is not the decisions but that there is little room to explain WHY one has picked one or the other, or - even worse - the game explains it for you.

To clarify, my credo is to support neither the fanatics nor the terrorists, but to protect those I believe innocent. That is why a certain cannibal had to die, and why I would not support the cashier-murdering elves in the bank.

In consequence, however I was treated as if I had willingly Later in a flashback, Geralt himself states this, which was clearly not my view on things.


At the end of chapter 4, one has to make another decision
At this moment, the options were already limited due to beforementioned assumptions about my motives. And what I decided - because is was the only acceptable choice to me - apparently sent me down another path of ideals which was NOT the reason behind it.


So what am I ranting about…? The game assumes too much. Based on a player's selection from a sometimes very limited choice of options. And there is no way of telling NPCs who realistically assume "free will" your true reasons - which is sad in a game which is so much about identity as the Witcher.

Witcher is more complicated than that Vio. Lady of the Night told Geralt: "Lesser evil Geralt. Be wary of greater evils lurking in the darkness." But which evil is the lesser one? Witch or villagers? "Blue Eyed" or Partick de Weyze? Fanatics (Order)or terrorists (Squirrels)? You made your choice…. Are you positive that it was a right one? Look at Alvin! Taking care of the boy seemed like no brainer!

Now, thankfully most of us will almost never be faced with choices on this scale but history is full of lesser evils which turned into greater ones greater ones despite the best of intentions. Witcher gives you a chance to taste some of those choices! Enjoy…..

BTW which side did you pick: Abigail or villagers?

Abigail-she paid me well for choosing her side

>> my problem is not the decisions <<

It's the interpretation of my choices.
A player's thoughts can be more complicated, too.

With all due respect Vio, however good Witcher is, it is still just a computer game. No game can possibly make allowances for all the choices and/or thoughts player might have or want to make.

I think it's tough not to be politically involved in such circumstances especially Geralt is killing people/monsters. Probably, Geralt's intension doesn't matter but people judge Geralt in a way of their liking since people hate each other and Geralt is in the middle of it. I am not happy with "the lesser evil" theme but I can understand some of the hatred cannot but be thrown at Geralt in such political circumstances. However, I am another who is unhappy with the side effect that NPCs tend to look like a bunch of simpletons. Mass psychology is O.K. but I wished there to be some individuals with their own wills and reasonings.

I'm siding w/ the Order this time through, my first real strike against the Scoi'atel (and the one which I feel firmly cements me w/ the Order) was the battle at the Golem graveyard. I am still human, and while I do understand the other side, I'm playing Geralt as a loyalist to mankind. I was created for a purpose, and I cannot turn my back on that purpose and my race. As I said, sure the rebels have their points, everyone always has a point.

For every win, someone must lose.

You can even keep your own hands clean by waking the golem and then taking the quest.

Or just not do it at all? What happens then?

I did just that Vio: talked to both sides and than went after Golem and finished chapter without joining neither side. As far as I am aware the only consequence is that you loose a bit of experience points and get a note in your Journal (in "Identity") that you like to be neutral.

xSamhainx - let me remind you that Geralt got a pitchfork stuck in his gut while defending nonhumans from an angry mob. And that his friends just about evenly split between humans and nonhumans.

Which is sort of a crackup in itself, I couldnt believe it the first time I heard it!

Here's this legendary warrior who's been forged into a living weapon by a life dedicated to battle, and he's finally laid to rest by… some peasant with a fucking pitchforK??

Geralt knows that mankind's hands are not spotless. He knows that a lot of them wouldnt be considered innocent, or even good by any stretch of the imagination. Some would no sooner smile at you than stab you in the back for the contents of your wallet. But the same could be said for the other side as well.

When the rubber hits the road, Geralt's loyalty is not up for grabs- he is who and what he is.

Of course you are entitled to play Geralt any way you see fit xSamhainx but "mankind" is a very late concept in human history and doesn't exist at all in Sapkowski's books. Geralt would have been familiar with concept of "us" and "them" but puzzled by "mankind"…

Alright, well "Human-kind" then ='.'=