Posted June 20, 2011
I'm not sure I agree. I mean, I felt that way initially, but the more I played through his story the more I started to see Roche as the kind of person who feels that anything, including torture and murder, is justified so long as it is done "for the good of the state". In short, the guy is a fascist.
endtherapture: Roche's personal story is one of a tragic fall from grace, he's lost all his friends and men, in my game Geralt abandoned him to save Triss, and his country is in ruins and he is fugitive. So sad, because he is a good man at heart.
I sided with Roche initially because I remembered just how dirty the Scoia'tael played in TW1; basically they were terrorists who were no better than the racists they fought against, and I wasn't about to get mixed up in that mess again. But the more he talked, the more I realized that he was someone Geralt probably wouldn't get along with. The final straw was finding him leading the secret plot against Henselt. Not that I have any fondness for Henselt (and in fact I let Roche kill him), but both Geralt and I were beyond sick and tired of all the politics and scheming at that point. Everyone is working an angle, but all Geralt wants to do is run off with Triss and get back to the Path.
But anyways, my Iorveth playthrough felt like it fit with Geralt's character much more organically, particularly after Iorveth's comment about fighting for a free state where humans and nonhumans could coexist peacefully. At that point it's no longer about choosing between two groups who are equally terrible, as was the case in TW1. And given that Geralt ultimately went out trying to defend a bunch of nonhumans from persecution I don't think it's hugely out of place to find him on the side of Saskia's rebels.
Post edited June 20, 2011 by aroth