Which one, in your opinion, is better? Also, would you say that path is "the lesser evil" ?

Please no specific spoilers.

Eh... I would say it depends on how you want things to come out in terms of the game world.

I felt like Iorvoth's path was much more... involving Geralt influencing the world around him and trying to be an active participant in the struggles going on; whereas Roche's path felt, to me, more like a neutral witcher path that was really focused on getting the Kingslayer and finding out about the Wild Hunt (though I learned more about the Wild Hunt from Iovorth's path because of a certain sorceress than on Roche's path).

Uh.... no specific spoilers? It is a bit hard to discuss this without spoilers - I will try my best though. I would say Iorveth's path is chaotic good and Roche's path to be lawfully neutral. It is very difficult to say which one is lesser evil (we need the sequel to tell us haha)

Some spoilers are ok, just don't go into much details

Both of the paths are great. If you like the game then just play both of them. I would recommand you doing Roche's path first and Ioverth's secound. From some reason i fould Iorveth's path more interesting... but maybe it's because i played Roche's first.

They're both very different. You need to play them both.

You're going to miss a good chunk of the story and understanding behind the motivations of half the characters if you only ever play one side.

Everytime I see some thread titled, "I just finished my first playthrough and here's my thoughts", I facepalm myself because they're posting all sorts of random crap without having experienced all the motivations and story only playing both sides gives you.

See, choosing a side doesn't suddenly make the other side's events never occur. All those characters on the other side are still living out their lives and machinations, just without your input. This isn't like most games, where choosing a side ends up meaning the other side is essentially forgotten and bugger all what they might have done with their lives.

I prefer Iorveth's, liked the the location a whole lot more and meeting up with some of Geralts old friends was great. I also like Iorveth a whole lot more than Roche. I'm not sure which one would be considered the "lesser evil" but I'm leaning towards Iorveth as Henselt is a horrible prick, and Vergen isn't inhabited entirely by bigots. Although towards the end with Saskia makes me wonder how she's going to turn out.

This. There's a lot more explanation in Iorveth's path, and doing Roche's path first gives you a basic framework to better understand all that information coming at you.

Personal preference, of course, but it seems like there are a bunch of things that would have flown right over my head had I started with the Iorveth playthrough.

I played Iorveth's side first, and felt the exact same way when I played Roche's side as you did by playing Iorveth's side. ;p I think it has more to do with the fact that you have all that extra knowledge now. There's a lot of dialog and what not they threw in there that would only make sense if you had played the other side.

First example on Roche's would be the Nilfgardian ambassador as he speaks to you early in on the Act on the Roche side for instance. It probably wouldn't make much sense if you'd done Roche's side first.

That's just one example though. I think they did an awesome job of complimenting the two sides.

That said, from a purely superficial view, you get more eyecandy playing Iorveth's side with two sexual encounters and a sorceress with real stage time (sadly, Sile has almost nothing to say during Act 2 on the Roche side).

One word to trump them all: Lesbomancy.

One Ves is equal to an elf and a succubus. 'Nuff said.

Sile may not get much in the way of development, but Dethmold sure does. Granted, he's hardly a sorceress and I doubt he'd look as good in low-cut clothing, but magic is magic, dammit.

Playing through Iorveth's side on my second play-through right now and I already know that when it comes to importing save games or continuing the game, I will use my Roche's save. That Geralt feels much more neutral and true to the character that I've been constructing since the first game.

I really loved Dethmold. The trailers gave me this impression of this incredibly dour man, and so when I first talked with him, I was pleasantly surprised. :p

Ves just isn't my type of woman, nevermind all the tripe she trots out in Act 1 about having no interest in your dick and how even if she did, she'd never anger a sorceress.

The incredibly paranoid tin-hat wearing conspiracy theorists may wonder if Ves was secretly a spy for Dethmold, and she knew about Triss' capture, and thus is the reason she has this sudden change of heart in Act 2. Would fit with why Dethmold choose to leave her alive, and only her.

Now, I'm totally just spinning imaginative crap out my arse in that last paragraph, but I never liked Ves, so I'll pretend she's a two-timin' girl to help cement my dislike for her. :p

I felt the quests in Iorveth's path were... richer? .. I don't know the word I'm looking for, maybe they had more substance... and definitely the location in the second act is more interesting... however, I cannot stand the freaking elf.

I don't think the line of demarcation between the two paths was a moral one. Neither was the "lesser evil". I will say that I preferred Iorveth's, for reasons I won't divulge for fear of spoilers. Let's just say I liked the people in that path better than I did the ones I had to associate with in Roche's, save for the man himself.

I was surprised by Dethmold, too ;). For a morally bankrupt, power-mad egomaniac, he had a sense of humor. A sick one, but, still, it was there.