Poll is simple. On your first playthough who did you side with?  Iorveth or Roche? I picked  Iorveth for my first playthough. Picked him because I had to agree with fighting to help the Non-humans. 
 
Please keep spoilers inside spoiler tags. 

Also for those who picked Roche... did you find it paid off and/or the decision turned out to be interesting? (Refrain from spoilers - I'm only starting Act 2)

Also for those who picked Roche... did you find it paid off and/or the decision turned out to be interesting? (Refrain from spoilers - I'm only starting Act 2)

What i love about Witcher is how the decisions aren't a simple right or wrong, they are more grey. Both have their pro and cons but no one seems like the "paragon" decision.

I personally went with Iorveth for the first playthrough. He seems like he really wants to make a change, while Roche just feels like a cop.

Last May, I chose Roche then I played again and chose Iorveth. For my third, Enhanced Edition playthrough, I chose Roche again. What I love about The Witcher 2 is there is no wrong/right/Paragon/Renegade choices. Each side has their heroes and their assholes.

Roche. While I liked Iorveth, I never cared much for the Non-humans. Not after the first game, anyway.

I sided with the squirrels in The Witcher and they still behaved recklessly. So I sided with Roche in 2, which turned the game into a FUCKING SOLDIER CAMP SIMULATOR and caused me to start resenting the entire franchise against my will. 
 
I would pay in gold to go back to mid 2011, choose Iorveth and never go to the cur-sed fucking henselt camp that single handedly turned me into a Witcher 2 hater.

Always side with the guy with the cool scar.

@AhmadMetallic:

Goddammit, let it go, duder.

I hate the goddamn Scoiatael! I don't care if they are easier to realte with in two, they were such moronic assholes in one, I just can't side with them.

Mind, if I could help the nohumans in less retarded ways I would, but for now it seems siding with racist pricks is the better choice overall...

Roche because I've wanted to for the the pharma business for a while now.

@TobbRobb: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a big part of the scoia'tel in two about how there was no unified scoia'tel anymore?

I sided with Iorveth. I just felt like with Iorveth I could achieve my goals and make him work for me and sway him. Roche at the time seemed like the more difficult choice, and also that I could still maintain a positive relationship with Roche despite going with Iorveth.

@YI_Orange: I haven't played it since release, so I might be a bit fuzzy. I recognize what you are trying to say... But weren't you attacked by Iorveth for no reason early on? Even if they aren't Scoia'tael, they are the part of it that I didn't like...

@TobbRobb: Yeah, they were definitely still seen as(probably rightfully so) terrorists and were in a race war with humans. And yeah, Iorveth started some shit with Geralt. I remember there being some indication that what was left of the scoi'atel was basically just a bunch of groups of them doing their own thing, I could be wrong. Assuming I'm right, that's part of the reason I chose him, because there was no one above him giving him orders. If I'm wrong, well, then I'm remembering my decision making process wrong too.

@YI_Orange:I feel a little bad for not being entirely sure. But I think they never really were unified as a military organization. There were just several groups with the same cause, sharing the name. But they all operated separetely. Like anonymous one might say. COUGH

I'm pretty sure Iorveth was as high as it went in the area, no one told him what to do. I remember liking his character a bit, but I didn't want to join their cause.

My first playthrough i went with Iorveth, but that was a year ago on the PC.   Now i'm playing through again on the 360 and going with Roche, definitely feels like a different game in chapter 2.

Roche was my first play through and it fills in less of the blanks imo, doing Iorveths play through afterwards explained a lot of the things I didn't necessarily understand.

I can imagine the reverse feeling a little less meaningful though.

I went with Iorveth, cause he is such a badass <3 Most amazing character in the game apart from Triss =)

Roche, because Iorveth didn't have an elaborately neat hat.

@rebgav said:

Why would you care either way? You're Witchers, dammit! WITCHERS!

I feel the first game makes a rather good case of Witchers, politically speaking, being the same as Dwarves and Elves. While Witchers are mutated Humans and were created to protect humans, with the passing of years and continuing decline of monster presence everyone has begun to despise them - you'll hear the curses from random NPCs. In addition, many of Geralt's closest friends are of these races. The Scoitael's actions can be questioned, I often regretted helping them when I saw what they did with the help, but I'd rather them harm an oppressor than see anyone further oppressed.

The judgement call is kind of different in TW2, though. Roche didn't really seem like a bigot or anything as the Flaming Rose were, but I still had to make a call. All of my characterization of Geralt and Witchers is based on the games, though. I've read The Last Wish, but it doesn't much delve into the ethics of the world. But one thing that should be said is that the moral grey choices of killing monsters in the game are the same choices he makes in the book. Just as he doesn't mindlessly kill "monsters" he shouldn't be necessitated to blindly follow a path of "witcher code".

@rebgav said:

The Witchers have no political loyalties nor do they much care to get involved in social, moral or political disputes. They seem to have two primary concerns; To fulfill their role of protecting "people" from "monsters" and making enough money to survive and keep their order going. The Scoia'tael are flat-out terrorists. They aren't fighting against oppression (nonhumans are not really oppressed or even discriminated against all that much, they seem mostly tolerated) they're fighting a war of retaliation against humans which is largely fueled by the anger of the Elves at their own inevitable decline. The public face of the Scoia'tael is the pretense at a fight for equality for nonhumans but that (as I understand it) is just a recruitment tool and rallying cry provided by Nilfgaardian spies to sow dissent in the Northern Kingdoms to lay the groundwork for another invasion (at least in it seems that way from the first book and the games). Regardless, the wholesale slaughter of human outposts, civilians included, is not really a fitting tactic for a "noble" cause.

I'm not saying that anyone has to care about RPing a Witcher, just that it never pays to take sides in this fiction. Everyone is corrupt.

Damn, I'm not sure I could disagree with you more. Sure, your descriptions of a Witcher as a profession is spot on, but Geralt over the course of the last two games is one hell of a far cry from fitting that mold. Dandelion and Zultan constantly pester him saying he can't hold on to the neutrality aspect of being a Witcher in these times. And the events of the TW2 prologue couldn't be more contradictory to avoiding politics as he's obviously tangled himself up with Foltest's desires. And no oppression? Sorry, but entering Vizima for the first time to find Dwarves and Elves relegated to a dreary section of the city, The Non-Human District, the same case in Flotsam in TW2, and many just general cases of racism on TW1 that I forget, doesn't do much to convince me of humans being tolerant. Certainly the many Scoiatael leaders Geralt interacts with over the two games, primarily Iorveth and Yaevinn, are misguided terrorist who can't let go of their pride. But it can't be said that many innocents of these races aren't maltreated, though some of it is a result of the Squiatael actions.

I'm not Versed well enough on Witcher lore to comment on the Nilfgaardian element you discussed, though. The grand schema of the world remains clouded to me, I often found myself lost with the political dialogue of TW2.

But I'm not opposed the prospect of RPing a Witcher. I'd like very much not to be the one to decide the fate of these people, but the way the game presents these options (not the boring decisive pick Iorveth or Roche part) I find it hard not to choose. And while you say it never pays to take sides, I'd argue TW1 more tried to drive home the point that neutrality results in greater loss.

I have a save point RIGHT at where you pick a side. I am gonna go with Roche for my second time. A few extra gamerscore I wanna round up and see more of the game from Roches view. 

I have a save point RIGHT at where you pick a side. I am gonna go with Roche for my second time. A few extra gamerscore I wanna round up and see more of the game from Roches view. 

@mandude said:

Roche, because Iorveth didn't have an elaborately neat hat.

Iorveths feather cap didnt do the trick for you? =)

I'll just leave this here...

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

Roche. Dude is a total badass.

Damn 88 votes split 50-50

@valrog said:

I'll just leave this here...

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

Dayum Son, Roche has got some fucking moves!

is there a glitch somewhere? or is it REALLY exactly 50/50 after 100 votes?

that's gotta make CDProjekt feel awesome.

Roche, because I just thought he was an awesome character who I really enjoyed interacting with. I still helped Iorveth later on, but I think Roche is a better character.

101 votes and a split? (all most) Damn...thats awesome. Im gonna go replay with Roche. 

Roche and picked him just by my gut during the fight.  Glad I did because his achievements made the last few hours of the game somewhat enjoyable.  

Iorveth. Both him and Roache are equal parts racist douchebags so I found Iorveth to be the logical choice since The Kingslayer worked with the Scoatiel. (Sp?)