Neutral, Order, or Squirrel?

I picked Neutral, and am very happy with how the ending narration completes the story.

I've done all 3 but I only have a save file for Neutral (but tending towards Scoia'tael since the game forces you to choose a side twice).

it only forces you to pick during Gold rush. you can skip the other quest that forces a choice(so skipping would be the neutral option)

Neutral, to me is the besst ending for the first game.

Since neutrality is supposed to be the watchword of being a Witcher, it makes the most sense that it would be the best ending choice.

Neutral.

I give this game a 10/10, but
<criticism>
this was one 'decision' that seemed pretty weak. A big part of the game's awesomeness is the whole moral ambiguity thing, with decisions where neither is clearly the right decision or the wrong decision. In this area, though, the neutral path was obviously the "right" path. The Squirrel path = terrorism, and the Order path = racism. I can't see how anyone would get on board with either of these, except possibly out of fondness for Siegfried...but the game continually reminds you that the Order is racist and naive. So (it seemed to me) that there really wasn't really any moral ambiguity here, and that neutral path was too obviously the correct path.
</criticism>

still the best game ever.

Although I think the neutral path is the most sensible, it is still (and should be) at least as morally disturbing as taking either side, and it's inconsistent with Geralt's own past.

If Geralt sides with either the Order or the Squirrels, he's aiding and abetting atrocities even as he tries to set an example for and reform the faction leaders.

If Geralt remains neutral, he allows atrocities to occur through his inaction, and he forfeits his influence over the faction leaders. Maybe this does not sound worse to you or me, but I do not think it fits Geralt.

Geralt lives by a strict moral code (of his own making, as Berengar so sarcastically points out), not just by witcher tradition, and his code requires him to come to the aid of the oppressed, even in a conflict he has no part in. The fact that he did so, even over the well-meaning advice of his friends, is what caused him to wind up dead five years earlier.

That one I looked at as more historically accurate, though. Just look at the Jews in England in Spain however many hundreds of years ago, or the attempted eradication of Christianity, the settlers and tribes here in the States, the animosity, conquering, inhabiting, assimilation of however many empires and wars. The Squirrels were just as hateful and fanatical as the Order, the Order used terror more effectively than the Squirrels when they had the chance. They're the same sides of a two headed coin.

This is the mentality of the Grand Master. The Grand Master sought to avert great atrocities by means of lesser atrocities--"the ends justify the means."

There are, classically, two schools of ethics.

1. Utilitarian, or ends-justify-the-means. This is the Grand Master's stance, and it is a stance that would support Geralt taking sides.

2. Kantian, or, every action should be considered as an end in itself. Thus, killing is not an acceptable means to an end, because killing, as an end it itself, is obviously unethical.

cjrgreen, I think YOU would have made a better game (as far as the neutral/order/squirrel thing goes) than CDProjekt did. As it stands, neither the Order nor the Squirrels were clearly pursuing the greater good. If they were, the player's decision would be tougher--should I help terrorists (or racists) in the name of justice, or should I allow injustice to continue on the basis that a violent intervention would be unjust in itself? That should have been the decision for the player to make.

While that's very true, I think looking at it that way puts too great a burden on Geralt's motivations.

Although Geralt is undoubtedly well-schooled and knows enough about Machiavellianism to denounce it, his concerns are never visionary the way the Grand Master's are, or geopolitical, the way the kings', the Sorceresses' Guild's, and Leeuvarden's are. They are immediate and personal, and as such they don't admit of much deeper philosophical analysis than his own concern that witchers may have become obsolete in a world where the greatest evils are lawful.

So it's not so much whether he takes one side or the other or refuses to take sides as his insistence on defending his friends and righting immediate wrongs that defines him.

well said, friend!!

just realizing that we are still talking about a videogame kind of made my head explode. This game is excellent.