I don’t understand people who go the Roche route literally just because the choice to get onto it involves Geralt just keeping the elf dudes sword away from him like a dick when Roche shows up out of the blue.
It just felt like such a weird choice to make to me.
Like why should Geralt give a shit?
I was just like here have your sword and go fight each other I guess.
maybe I was already too leftist when I played the game because keeping the sword from the elvish freedom fighter while the dude attacks him just seems petty and dickish and obviously taking a side in the conflict on the side of Roche.
Geralt has already stated he doesn’t really care about their quarrel, so just giving the dude his sword and let whatever happens happen just seemed like the more neutral (and less assholeish) of a move.
It's another trolley problem type thing; if you don't give him the sword you're obviously taking a side and just letting him die but you can pretend that you're not responsible; if you give him the sword you're in some sense "responsible" for whatever happens next, mainly that one of those two people is probably going to get killed. You're responsible in either instance, but it's easier to delude yourself you're not in the first.
Oh you might be right, I think the choice I am thinking of just determines whether the pogrom happens or how it happens??
Idk it’s been some time since I played, I also remember the choice you are talking about tho.
I remember this pretty weakly. I think the pogrom starts anyway but you have the option to help Iorweth save some people or go to Roche and do nothing.
I think if you side with the Elf guy the public reacts more negatively (some how) and is more violent to the nonhumans in retaliation?
Maybe cause more humans die in the original fight, idk.
I don’t understand people who go the Roche route literally just because the choice to get onto it involves Geralt just keeping the elf dudes sword away from him like a dick when Roche shows up out of the blue.
It just felt like such a weird choice to make to me. Like why should Geralt give a shit? I was just like here have your sword and go fight each other I guess.
I have to imagine a lot of it is weird brainworms about "nonviolence" despite playing a game where you slaughter people willy nilly.
maybe I was already too leftist when I played the game because keeping the sword from the elvish freedom fighter while the dude attacks him just seems petty and dickish and obviously taking a side in the conflict on the side of Roche.
Geralt has already stated he doesn’t really care about their quarrel, so just giving the dude his sword and let whatever happens happen just seemed like the more neutral (and less assholeish) of a move.
It's another trolley problem type thing; if you don't give him the sword you're obviously taking a side and just letting him die but you can pretend that you're not responsible; if you give him the sword you're in some sense "responsible" for whatever happens next, mainly that one of those two people is probably going to get killed. You're responsible in either instance, but it's easier to delude yourself you're not in the first.
Wasn't that choice ultimately super obvious? Iirc either save the girls from pogrom or join the schutzstaffel.
Oh you might be right, I think the choice I am thinking of just determines whether the pogrom happens or how it happens??
Idk it’s been some time since I played, I also remember the choice you are talking about tho.
I remember this pretty weakly. I think the pogrom starts anyway but you have the option to help Iorweth save some people or go to Roche and do nothing.
I think if you side with the Elf guy the public reacts more negatively (some how) and is more violent to the nonhumans in retaliation?
Maybe cause more humans die in the original fight, idk.