it is just like two sides of any war story.

when I was in Vietnam, they said the Americans were the invaders, civilian killers; here they said the North are communists, supporting dictatorship. Which side should I side with lol.

The matter is in war: innocence is the first casualty. Wars brew hatred; wars aim to destroy; wars feed humiliation etc.

YOU CHOOSE A SIDE USUALLY NOT BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE THAT SIDE; YOU ARE JUST DRAW TO ONE SIDE.


enough ethics, politics and such. Back to this game:

I think the Scoiateals are better because:

1.They dont killed every human - they dont harrass the Lubinden villagers - the villagers are not racists.

2.They are the minority. They majority human have number, power, wealth, everything to take advantage of the non-humans.

3.History in Gerald's world has many incidents where human betray, attack the non-human first. Likewise, the human in Gerald bear not only hatred and prejudice to non-human but also witchers, witches and worshipers of other religions.

4.The attitude toward Iorveth by Roche and vice versa are all circumstantial - for you to interpret. Iorveth accuses Roche of murderer of elves and chidren as well. We already see that Roche reported to king Foltest "a section of force is ..... in the village".

It is more believable that Roche's force or his side (the king, the general human) commit more atrocity against the minority.

5. Saskia is leading un uprising, an alliance between human, non-human. Iorveth ackowleges she is a potential (act 2, before Lothe battle)

There are 2 kinds of people I really can't stand.... racists and black people....


JOKE!!!!

Racists aren't really that bad....

JOKE!!!!! (my sincerest apologies to any persons offended by that tasteless joke)


I feel for the Scoi'atel I think mainly because the human side is more visible in their persecution of the non-humans, whereas the "atrocities" committed by the "terrorists" are only spoken of, we don't really see that much evidence of it. At least that's how it appears to me.

In answer to point one, I give you the example of Ves from the Blue Stripes. She was used as a sex slave by a Scoia'tel unit leader after they butchered her village. So unless you are saying that everyone in Ves's home village was evil and she at 16 deserved to be used for sex you cannot be right there.

In answer to 2, being a minority gives no license commit atrocities like in the example given above.

In answer to 3, continuing a cycle of violence especially when you have no hope of winning does you no service when you are trying to convince people you are a happy go lucky flower picker. Geralt shows plenty of contempt for the Scoia'tel on numerous occasions. Zoltan isn't too keen on them either. Though he has a habit of taking up arms with them.

iorveth and Roche are both ruthless murderers. Neither are any more right than the other. If they would stop trying to kill each other fo r5 mins they would probably realize how alike they are and become good drinking buddies. Well maybe not.

Regardless who does more damage is irrelevant. Both sides are equally responsible for the current situation. Just because humans threw the first punch does not mean it is right to wholesale murder entire villages. Besides the Scoia'tel happily fought for Nilfgaurd. Are Foltest and the other Kings going to ignore that? There is more to it than just racism when you are given good reason for it.

Saskia is exceptional in oh so many ways. one in a million. Besides Heselt represented a common vile enemy. Few things are quicker to rally old foes under one banner than a massively threatening tyrant. I guarantee that as soon as that threat passes that alliance would dissolve.

Every point you made was completely valid. I am merely giving the other side of the picture.

That's what I was about to write. Don't remember him being racist?

Look like I just pick the fact favorable to my interpretation lol

First: well, if you drive a tiger against the wall, it will act ferociously. I feel sympathetic toward the Scoiateal, even to their atrocity. What else do they stand to loose. It has been hundred of years fighting. Generations of human have risen up and still bear the same racism. (human are short-lived compared to elves). The human may forget - but the elves, in their life time, probably a hundred years - will not forget the lost they bear 50 years ago. It is very much understandable that in their mentality, the Scoiateal condone their violence act. It is constant struggle; it is vengeful.

Second: playing Witcher 1, I see that the Scoiateal aren't too bad. I remember the quest where you first arrived the Outskirt and had to deal with them first hand. They didn't steal goods from merchant.

Third: in war, no side is clean of blood. War is to spill blood. There shouldn't be a surprised if Zolten and Gerald have some attitude to any side.

Forth: let assume Gerald's world is equivalent to the medieval europe. 30 years ago, war broke out in my country, and there was hardly any concern for chivary, rules of war or so, by both sides.

So I wouldn't be so surprised if any innocent killing and revenge and such in the conflict between the Scoitael and human

That's kind of his job, though.

Nothing you have posted is inherently wrong Freewind. The point I was making is that it is a mistake to say that either side is "right." One of the lore books in Witcher 1 shows a propaganda piece by the elves claiming humans are invaders that only appeared on the world during the Conjunction of Spheres. The correlation is obvious as monsters appeared at the same time also. So the elves are not just feeling hate but fomenting it as well. They are not dewy eyed innocents. Also there are equally lovely propaganda pieces from the human side as well.

The path that is being followed now has but one outcome...elven extinction. Folks like Yeavan (who on the neutral ending shows considerable remorse for the bloodshed he caused if you call him on it) Iorveth are acting as much for themselves as for their people. They are not trying to get equal rights, but "their land" back. I know this is callous beyond belief but that time is past. They are in a new order and not dying means working within that new order. Their people will keep dying as long as the human leaders keep getting good excuses to kill them.

I'm stressing again though that there is no right side here. Saskia comes closest to being that, but she is not of the Scoia'tel. She is another remarkable force altogether. But I remain convinced that her alliance would fall to pieces without Henselt to unite them.

it would be great if witcher 3 continue this story, to see how this struggle may end

I see little reason why it wouldn't. The primary tension in both games is this racially motivated conflict. The reason it is so fascinating is just how much it mirrors real world events.

Branding Roche as a racist is pretty unfair. I completed the game on his path and he never showed any racist tendencies of any sort. He may have been apathetic towards the fate of nonhumans, but ultimately his motivation was as a soldier and protector of Temeria.

He didn't hate the Squirrels because they were elves: he hated them because they were terrorists who killed innocents. He was equally willing to kill human criminals who threatened hs kingdom or his comrades, like Loredo and Henselt. Ves tells Geralt in Act 1 that "If the Scoiatel were human bandits I'd kill them just the same." It's the same with Roche.