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

×
Community
The Witcher 2Iorveth/Roche (witcher 2) SPOILER(11 posts)(11 posts)
(11 posts)
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 20, 2011
Why did Iorveth let Roche live in that duel? Better the devil you know? Out of respect? Or just knowing that he can beat him?

Ps! I posted this as a question since it just seemed the more logical thing to do since i am asking your opinions. I apologize for any confusion.
Post edited July 20, 2011 by Rockmyheart
No posts in this topic were marked as the solution yet. If you can help, add your reply
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
Rockmyheart: Why did Iorveth let Roche live in that duel? Better the devil you know? Out of respect? Or just knowing that he can beat him?
Why is this posted as a question? The answers are subjective, so you really can't choose a post as the "right" post. Just wondering.

And I'd bet it was partially because killing someone in a duel is almost a sign of honor, and letting him live knowing that he lost in a straight-up fight is worse than losing. With a rivalry like that between them, it's so much sweeter to force the other to live the rest of their life knowing that you're better.
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
Rockmyheart: Why did Iorveth let Roche live in that duel? Better the devil you know? Out of respect? Or just knowing that he can beat him?
avatar
227: Why is this posted as a question? The answers are subjective, so you really can't choose a post as the "right" post. Just wondering.

And I'd bet it was partially because killing someone in a duel is almost a sign of honor, and letting him live knowing that he lost in a straight-up fight is worse than losing. With a rivalry like that between them, it's so much sweeter to force the other to live the rest of their life knowing that you're better.
Thank you for your answer and i thought that since i was asking your opinions about this subject it would make more sense to post it as a question :-)
Posted July 20, 2011
Seems to me he did it out of a feeling of smug superiority, perhaps feeling that Roche will suffer more alive than dead. He already lost his King and letting him live is just further humiliation. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Iorveth is all about killing humans, he *hates* Roche and it seems to me that letting Roche live might harm his cause in the end.
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
227: And I'd bet it was partially because killing someone in a duel is almost a sign of honor, and letting him live knowing that he lost in a straight-up fight is worse than losing. With a rivalry like that between them, it's so much sweeter to force the other to live the rest of their life knowing that you're better.
I think so too.

"Remember who defeated you, remember he can do so again."
Post edited July 20, 2011 by dnna
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
227: And I'd bet it was partially because killing someone in a duel is almost a sign of honor, and letting him live knowing that he lost in a straight-up fight is worse than losing. With a rivalry like that between them, it's so much sweeter to force the other to live the rest of their life knowing that you're better.
avatar
dnna: I think so too.

"Remember who defeated you, remember he can do so again."
He did have that smug tone in his voice when he said that... Just weird thing in that is if you hate some one so much wouldn't you wanna get rid of them sooner than later?

Than again this Iorveth we are talking about heaven only knows what is going on in his head :-D

Fighting humans for a century or more you get very good at hiding and killing.
Post edited July 20, 2011 by Rockmyheart
Posted July 20, 2011
Can't remember where I heard that, but the trick is:

You're no-one without your mortal enemy. Your existence lacks the meaning.

Iorweth without Roche would be just another commando leader.
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
Ostrowiak: Can't remember where I heard that, but the trick is:

You're no-one without your mortal enemy. Your existence lacks the meaning.

Iorweth without Roche would be just another commando leader.
So in away both balance each other out.... In a way every one has to have there own arch nemesis
Posted July 20, 2011
Iorveth even explains his reason behind this, himself, as dnna pointed out. If either of them were to die, the other would most likely feel quite empty afterwards (Les Misérables' character conflict comes to mind), but these people probably can't know this before the event; so I'm more inclined to go for the explanation that it's a much more grievous insult - a stronger show of the power he holds over him - to spare him. If Roche had been killed, it would have been over there for him, but if he was allowed to live, he has to live with the shame for the rest of his life. ;)
Post edited July 20, 2011 by Kindo
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
Kindo: Iorveth even explains his reason behind this, himself, as dnna pointed out. If either of them were to die, the other would most likely feel quite empty afterwards (Les Misérables' character conflict comes to mind), but these people probably can't know this before the event; so I'm more inclined to go for the explanation that it's a much more grievous insult - a stronger show of the power he holds over him - to spare him. If Roche had been killed, it would have been over there for him, but if he was allowed to live, he has to live with the shame for the rest of his life. ;)
Makes sense the shame of defeat stings lot longer than anything else especially since both of them are stubborn and proud to the core.

Pride goes before the fall.
Posted July 20, 2011
avatar
Ostrowiak: You're no-one without your mortal enemy. Your existence lacks the meaning.
Cool quote, dude. Joker said something similar to Batman during their final confrontation in Dark Knight.
Pages:
1
This is my favourite topic
Community
The Witcher 2Iorveth/Roche (witcher 2) SPOILER(11 posts)(11 posts)
(11 posts)