So I came to the end of Act 1 and was having real trouble deciding. Beforehand, I was thinking I'd go with Roche, since he'd stuck his neck out for me, but then Zoltan wanted me to team up with the elves, and oh man, Zoltan is a friend, so I have to give that some consideration, right? BTW, that's a real testament to how well the characters are written in this game, that I am able to think of Zoltan as a real person who can influence me, the player, through his friendship to Geralt, the character.

Anyway, I was having a real hard time, and I decided to put the game aside and sleep on it, come back to it the next day with fresh eyes.

That didn't help. So I decided to cheat a little. I decided to keep a save and play out both choices, just so I could see the start to each path and see if one of them rubbed me the wrong way. And boy did it ever.

The second Iorveth said: "Leave them. Our women are prepared to die", I saw him for what he was: A terrorist that has lost his moral compass in the pursuit of his goal. In light of recent events in the real world, you can see that just as with Al Qaida and ISIS, there are the beginnings of a legitimate cause in there somewhere, but the methods they employ are so beyond the pale that any legitimacy is instantly wiped out and replaced with revulsion.

Roche on the other hand is not ruled by hatred the same way Iorveth is. He is doing his job. He never (so far in the game, at least) expresses dislike for any innocent non-humans. His problem with the scoia'tael is not that they are non-humans, it is that they are bandits and terrorists, no matter their race. And that is the only position I can morally get behind. To me, going with Iorveth is like hating every white westerner because you are arab, or hating every arab because you're a white westerner. Going with Roche is like judging people by their actions, and not by their color or religion.

Plus, you get to kill that scum Loredo as a bonus. Jesus H. tapdancing Christ, it felt good to skewer that asshole!

Yep, Roche all the way. Have you already played The Witcher 3? If not, you're in for a treat. Roche's Witcher 2 path also led to what I feel was perhaps the greatest moral dilemma I've ever experienced in a game--which you likely haven't seen yet--what to do regarding Ves and the king.

Such great storytelling and dialog in those games. They really put nearly every other developer to shame in those areas.

No, I'm doing these in order. I've fiddled a little with the prologue to Witcher 3, just to see how good the graphics look, but I'm saving it.

I don't know guys, somehow Iorveth path seemed more appropriate to me. Vergen is such an awesome city and lets for you relax a bit and explore, chat with old friends, and the succubus quest was awesome. I mean it is worth it for the music only.

It is one of the best pieces in W2

Gotta side with Vernon Roche, he's my boy. Before I read the books I had thought he named his horse Roche (and not Roach) in Witcher 3 because he liked him so much (or maybe just meant it as a slightly humourous insult). Can't wait to see what he's been up to since the events of Assassins of Kings, if he even shows up.

Definitely agree that Roche is the better person although Iorveth has one of the more interesting character arcs. In my mind, the places you go, the people you meet and the things you find out on Iorveth's side are far more interesting and fun to do.

There's also other things I won't say as they may be seen as spoilers that are quite drastic.

I don't agree given what you accomplish with Iorveth by the end of his path. Yeah his methods are extreme but you live in a very extreme world in these games and he basically fits right into that system.

I think your reasoning is pretty sound mostly though OP about Roche but it's what makes Roche redeemable and likable in a lot of ways given what you see many on "his side" of things do in the first act of Witcher (and after). Without trying to spoil anything, lets just say in 2 and 3 despite my efforts directly to the contrary I saw the nonhumans massacred twice in major cities I was invovled in. You really have to acknowledge that that kind of thing happens. Kind of easy to see where Iorveth comes from. When anything goes wrong, whether they are involved or not, it seems like the first step is to kill all the non humans in this world so I see where radicalization comes from.

Also, I think it is unfair to judge him for his thinking as far as women being part of the fight and being prepared for death. There are many cultures throughout history where that was very much the thinking and would be perfectly acceptable. I think that is bias in judging gender roles from a different perspective and culture. In a world where any of them can be slaughtered indescriminately for no reason in the town they live in, you have to imagine they think about death a little differently.

Anyways, part of why W2's story is so good, to me, is that both sides you can choose have good justifications and motivations.

Iorveth. Going with him, you get a different perspective to the world of the Witcher 2. Also the Iorveth's path has more interesting quests.

Shame you'll miss the part where Iorveth said he just wants a future where Elves arent afraid of cities and humans arent afraid of the woods. He opens up a lot in act 2 and talks about a lot of interesting things. As for his line about the women Scoia'tael units aren't gendered, the fighters are both men and women. Would you have made such a harsh judgement had he said "our men are prepared to die"? Somehow I doubt it.

Biggest shame of all is that in the Witcher 3 Iorveth is totally absent regardless of importing your save or not, meanwhile Roche has 2 quest lines

The Iorveth path was way more interesting than the Vernon Roche path, for me anyway.

Although I went with Iorveth I actually really like your reasoning. After seeing more of Iorveth and helping the people he leads you too I'm not sure I'd change my mind, but you presented me with the most compelling reason to do so I've seen since playing the game years ago. Although I probably won't ever replay the game, it just goes to show that there's a lot of ways you can approach that choice.

Broche by a mile, better character and a more interesting path. Perhaps if they got to have Dol Blathanna in the game like they wanted to it would have been the reverse.

If you stick with the Iorveth path, you can eventually watch Roche from afar using magic. He tells his men you are innocent, and not to attack you if they encounter you again. Even after you betrayed him to join an outright terrorist cell, he tells them to stand down if they meet you, because he believes in you. You are going to do the right thing, even with Iorveth.

I actually think the Iorveth path is super interesting as a side story of sorts for the canonical story of the games ( no offense Iorveth guys, but the way 3 is structured, Roche is the canon path. ), as it helps you learn a bit more about the books/the setting itself, especially in Act 2. I just don't think it makes any sense for Geralt as a character, doesn't accomplish a damn thing, and then is 100% forgotten by Act 3/the entirety of Witcher 3.

Always side with Roche. The Scoia'tael have always been mislead and misdirected terrorists. They are fighting for a good cause in the worst ways possible.

Roche is so unbelievable false and full of shit and questionable morale but he seemed more usefull to me so i went with him. Always pick the winning side ey?

Iorverth that's my boy. I thought his path was much better than Roache quality wise.

After dipping into the beginning of act 2 with both parties, I decided to go with Roche. Not only does it give a much more satisfying conclusion to act 1, the people Geralt finds himself aligned with were very interesting. Having played the previous game and reading a couple of the books, Geralt finding himself embroiled in a conflict he wants nothing to do with-with unsavory characters who only tolerate him because they need his expertise-seems very much in line with the tone of the series. It tests what Geralt believes in and how close he follows the Witcher' code of neutrality in some real interesting ways, and reinforces the dark fantasy and anti-hero themes very well.

And the end of act 2...man that decision left a bad taste in my mouth. What a great game, I'll need a while before I'm ready to take on Witcher 3 but I am very much looking forward to it.

I did both paths. Each character has their thing. Neither are "good" characters, but that's what makes Witcher games interesting.

I will say that there is only one path where you get to really meet BEST GIRL.

Both paths showcase the great grey areas of the Witcher games. One can argue till blue about what side is good or bad, but I think it's entirely based on your opinions and beliefs who you'll side with. Quest wise I'd go with Roche. I found that path a lot more interesting and entertaining.

Despite his radical efforts and his perhaps "overkill attitude" I always somewhat respected Iorveth and the Scoia'tael in terms of their cause. Aside from their absolute hatred to all humans, which to me is what places them in the wrong, what they are fighting is a real threat indeed. With or without siding with Iorveth, you will see a modicum of violence from humans to "Nonhumans" in form of massacres or just flat out bigotry, racial discrimination, and social biases; a lot like that same very problem here, in reality. Therefore, if the decision was up to me, to choose between a secret service agent who works for the government and a rebellion leader who fights against(radical or not) a serious problem in said society, I would choose the one who I could easily see the planned result of from the get go. Besides, *SPOILER ALERT* even if you side with Iorveth, Vernon Roche keeps his faith in you, perhaps believing that even with the Scoia'tael, you would still end up doing the right thing. And even if you side with Roche, unlike Iorveth's path, Kaedweni would just once again, swallow up the Pontar Valley, leaving the nonhumans with nowhere to feel safe. And I do not believe Iorveth shows up in the Witcher 3, but Roche does, thus it is morally better to side with a band of rebels for once, just for the sake of standing up for the mistreated nonhumans and even doing them a grand favor by giving them a safe place to call home. I honestly hope this some of you out there a more detailed description of the moral effects of the decision between the two factions. ??