It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Arguments is about different opinions. and about insults it is you who is insulting me with your "your question is pointless", and /thread troll things.. I feel being trolled becasue we are not talking about the topic and I'm genuinely interested why would anyone -as Geralt-would support the Scoia'tael.
Post edited May 30, 2011 by mzprox
Why is it always the Elves (and possibly dwarves) that are dying out - why not a game where it's humans that are the minority and endangered species. I think i'd be an interesting twist ;).

Oh, OT, sure: neither side are paragons, both have their warts. Personally, I hated Henselt and enjoyed the Roche path far less than Iorveth's. Probably missed the burping, farting dwarves, god bless 'em.
Geralt died in anti-nohuman pogrom once, so i don`t see any problem to use squirrels help.
I too hated Henselt.. at some point I would had liked to switch side even if that means I fight on the same side as the Scoia'tael.
But the first act we do after choosing Iorveth's path is to free criminals by killing guards. Now we don1t know-those elves on the barge may not deserve to be there.. nut the point is : we don't know. Yet we go and help them, murdering soldiers, forgiving the Scoia'tael for their attempts when they tried to kill us before.
I'm still roaming around Flotsam ( and avoiding Kayran ) so haven't gone far enough to make a decision. I do know in the first Game, I tried to take a neutral path and not side with anyone.
avatar
mzprox: So I wonder.. Now I'm on my second playthrough, forcing myself to side with Iorveth-and while I would support Saskia over Henselt easily I can't stand the Scoia'tael..

They are terrorist without any realistic goal except maybe revenge.. whatever they do it will not help them nor their race at all.
In an analogy I think they are like the native north-americans-and while I can sympathise with them-not with their methods- I just can't see how could a human fight on their side?
I mean they keep trying to kill me just because i'm human.. they are the most racist group in the whole universe..
Roche unti isn1t too moral, but they are not racists-they fight for temeria, angainst the elven bandits defending their own people.
So yes it is a bad thing that the non-humans treated like second class, but why would a human help them in their futile war agains innocent /and not so innocent humans?
Hey mzprox, I kinda know what you mean. I mean, the first time I meet Scoia'tael they would have killed me with arrows were it not for Triss. The Scoia'tael acted like terrorist, heck, even Cedric the ex-Scoia'tael disapproves of them. They claim to fight for freedom and against persecution, yet they are doing it by brute force.

That being said, things took for a better turn when Iorveth meets Geralt though. He realized that hatred has blinded him until he gets used by the kingslayers and even got some of his men eliminated. He decided to join the fight in Aedirn where for the first time in a long time men, dwarves, and elves are fighting hand-in-hand. It gave hope that maybe all can coexist in the paradise called Vergen.

Compared to Roche's path, Iorveth's path seems less of a lost cause (given that Temeria gets divided between the 2 other Kings). Eh, too bad Saskia got charmed under the Lesbomancy curse, so I admit there is this one great uncertainty.
avatar
Raye: One person is not necessarily indicative of the group as a whole. There is no evidence Iorveth knew of or supported what Malena did. Even if he did... well, it WAS Loredo's guards, not random townsfolk. That seems to be a perfectly logical target for a group like that. And besides, there are examples of humans behaving badly. Loredo keeping an elf girl hostage in his house for like a year. Are you going to say all the humans are bad because of what he did?
I dont think Iorveth knew to be honest, I remember reading something in the prostitutes letter to him. And Zoltan says Iorveth is trying to be careful to avoid giving Loredo an excuse to attack the non humans. But that some of his unit are not showing the same restraint.
I don't see accompanying being the same as joining. And then comes the question why on earth would you go with Roche just after he used you. I felt no compelling reason at all to go with Roche.

There's also a deeper issue here of course. For some odd reason people are inclined to side with the humans forgetting completely about the fact that the humans are the intruders leaving literally NOTHING to the elves. There has been no indication at all that there was any reasoning with the humans at all. So you can disagree all you want with the ways of the Scoia'tael, but what's the alternative if they want to have any hope of a free state of their own? The humans only keep taking instead of also giving. There's btw a clear parallel with our own world, most dominantly Israel atm. These kind of conflicts will not resolve unless the dominant party actually starts showing generosity.
avatar
mzprox: Roche unti isn1t too moral, but they are not racists-they fight for temeria, angainst the elven bandits defending their own people.
So yes it is a bad thing that the non-humans treated like second class, but why would a human help them in their futile war agains innocent /and not so innocent humans?
Huh Roche's men-at-arms not racists? Must have played another game then...There even was a cutscene...

To your question: Geralt isn't even human to begin with and he is a monster slayer and humans can be monsters too *points at one possible endscene of TW1*
Killing human guards with the scoia'tael is kind of joining, not just accompanying. I can understand why would an elf fight or become a terrorist. I only wondered why would Geralt help them. (helping those who wanted to kill him and killing innocent people)
About Roche men, well maybe they are racists, what we know is that they don't like elves, doesn't mean they start killing them.. unless they are scoia'tael ofc, but that's their job.
avatar
mzprox: Killing human guards with the scoia'tael is kind of joining, not just accompanying. I can understand why would an elf fight or become a terrorist. I only wondered why would Geralt help them. (helping those who wanted to kill him and killing innocent people)
About Roche men, well maybe they are racists, what we know is that they don't like elves, doesn't mean they start killing them.. unless they are scoia'tael ofc, but that's their job.
With regards to "helping those who wanted to kill him", that is because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Also, I don't recall Geralt helping Iorveth to kill innocent people.
Post edited May 31, 2011 by vAddicatedGamer
avatar
Raye: One person is not necessarily indicative of the group as a whole. There is no evidence Iorveth knew of or supported what Malena did. Even if he did... well, it WAS Loredo's guards, not random townsfolk. That seems to be a perfectly logical target for a group like that. And besides, there are examples of humans behaving badly. Loredo keeping an elf girl hostage in his house for like a year. Are you going to say all the humans are bad because of what he did?
avatar
Anwell: I dont think Iorveth knew to be honest, I remember reading something in the prostitutes letter to him. And Zoltan says Iorveth is trying to be careful to avoid giving Loredo an excuse to attack the non humans. But that some of his unit are not showing the same restraint.
True. it's also telling that if you lie to the guards and let her go free, when you do finally find her again, she's hiding at (spoiler) the old asylum, not with the Scoia'tael. if Iorveth had known/approved of her actions, she could have gone and hid with him directly. That she didn't showed she feared reprisal from him
avatar
mzprox: Killing human guards with the scoia'tael is kind of joining, not just accompanying. I can understand why would an elf fight or become a terrorist. I only wondered why would Geralt help them. (helping those who wanted to kill him and killing innocent people)
About Roche men, well maybe they are racists, what we know is that they don't like elves, doesn't mean they start killing them.. unless they are scoia'tael ofc, but that's their job.
The elves did not want to kill Geralt they wanted to kill ROCHE. Geralt just happened to be accompanying him. Iorveth's sworn enemy just waltzed up to him, you expect him to just let him go? (at least, not without showing Roche who's boss. In their duel, Iorveth allows Roche to live willingly cus he's dramatic and considers him a worthy opponent. Roche on the other hand was prepared to kill him on the spot, until the Scoia'Tael showed up) Especially knowing damn well that if the positions were reversed, Roche would kill him?
Oh, I may regret this response:

The history of the Northern Kingdoms and the surrounding countries will be written by the winners. Who is to say who was a terrorist and who was a freedom fighter. Imagine being the original species of a beautiful country, a place of magic and harmony. Then imagine invaders taking your land, abusing it for its resources, messing up the ecology, introducing all manner of terror in the form of monsters that eat both the elves and the humans indiscriminately. Would you ( if you were an elf) not want things to return to how they were before there were these terrors? Now consider that the invading humans breed like rabbits and destroy everything they touch, Holy places made ruin, gardens laid to waste, all the while your elven families cannot breed at the same pace, so you loose ground to attrition. The matter quickly becomes one of survival of the entire race of the elves, not just who has control of one small land area. If you were looking at the extinction of your race, would you not fight as hard as you could to preserve even a small amount of it? Genocide is what the elves are fighting, even if their tactics are flawed.
I personally have to play the human story first, since I am unlikely to ever play that side again. and Yes, perhaps I care too much about the lore of this game and others.
avatar
Raye: [
True. it's also telling that if you lie to the guards and let her go free, when you do finally find her again, she's hiding at (spoiler) the old asylum, not with the Scoia'tael. if Iorveth had known/approved of her actions, she could have gone and hid with him directly. That she didn't showed she feared reprisal from him
Yeah she was terrified of Geralt at that point. So why not run too the Scoiatael where she would be safe? Because I think she acted alone with her friends. Each member of the Scoia`tael are different. In Vergen some are very rude to Geralt others are friendly enough. Some even attack Geralt and we know Iorveth doesnt approve of that.
avatar
mzprox: Killing human guards with the scoia'tael is kind of joining, not just accompanying. I can understand why would an elf fight or become a terrorist. I only wondered why would Geralt help them. (helping those who wanted to kill him and killing innocent people)
About Roche men, well maybe they are racists, what we know is that they don't like elves, doesn't mean they start killing them.. unless they are scoia'tael ofc, but that's their job.
avatar
Raye: The elves did not want to kill Geralt they wanted to kill ROCHE. Geralt just happened to be accompanying him. Iorveth's sworn enemy just waltzed up to him, you expect him to just let him go? (at least, not without showing Roche who's boss. In their duel, Iorveth allows Roche to live willingly cus he's dramatic and considers him a worthy opponent. Roche on the other hand was prepared to kill him on the spot, until the Scoia'Tael showed up) Especially knowing damn well that if the positions were reversed, Roche would kill him?
If you look at the early version of the cutscene where we first meet Iorveth. He actually says that Triss and Geralt can go, he doesnt care about them. They change that later though, maybe to make Iorveth appear more ruthless.
Post edited May 31, 2011 by Anwell