[SPOILER] Can you flip sides after Gold Rush (the bank robbery)?

[NewbieOne]

I'm mostly decided to support the Order on the complicated balance of things, though this, of course, is not an easy choice. In case I want to go back, will it be possible to change the choice again and switch to supporting the Order later, or is it going to be just the Squirrels vs neutrality?




Oh, and if you're in for another discussion of Squirrels vs Order, here are my reasons for hesitating:

Act I, Harren's moonlighting. I'd easily have let the elves take the meds and even food, possibly armour even, but not offensive weapons. This may well be what the book Geralt would have done. Unfortunately, there was no such option. Allowing them the meds also had to mean allowing them the weapons, and vice versa.

Act II, the non-violent stuff. After listening to Yaevinn being perfectly clear on his intention to burn Vizima, I don't know what I really was doing hanging out at the camp. Elf nostalgia, I suppose. Seing the treatment of Vivaldi and Vivaldi's response to Yaevinn's letter also gave me a nudge.

Act II, the swamp battle. It pained me to leave my friend Siegfried without help, which felt like a betrayal, especially since he was practically begging, and the Squirrels were meeting an arms dealer while being out in arms right on Vizima's doorstep, intending to burn it. The Order knights were well within their rights to attack. I think they even had a duty, and my Geralt was blinded by elf nostalgia. I put off the decision until later, went to deal with 'Raymond' first, and woke up in Act III.

In Act III, I considered my betrayal of Siegfried a sort of repayment of a debt of sentiment owed to the Squirrels on account of the obvious merits of the elf cause and the injustice done to non-humans, etc., and with usurious interest.

I still asked Yaevinn about any quests, thinking about a witcher way of making money by running various errands relating to the flora and the fauna. ;) Food or meds I would have provided as well, if nothing else. When I heard about his commandoes stuck in the elven ruins in the sewers looking for artifacts, I figured that was not exactly a hostile act, what with the artifacts belonging to the elves anyway (though 'the elves' should probably mean Dol Blathanna, hence not the Squirrels), besides, I wanted those guys out of the city and not causing trouble. Themselves not getting into trouble either was not a bad thing either.

But before doing Echoes, I did Six Feet Under and saw what happened at the cemetery and in the crypt. That was plain murder of not only civilian folks but in fact even women, to whom some of those bodies belonged. Locking those civilians — women and children — in the crypt with ghouls and felders was pretty much the last straw for me, though you can't exclude the commander exceeded Yaevinn's orders (or was it Yaevinn?) and believed the women and children would be saved.

I still went to seek out the hiding elves in the sewers before running back to Siegfried. The reason? Same as for accepting Echoes, plus the fact I'd given my word.

I then realized Yaevinn lied to me about the artifact search. Justifiable perhaps, what with military secrets and all, but another show of just how unreliable — and as it seems quite unstable — Yaevinn is. And now he goes on ranting about a new, better world with equal rights even for humans — no more of the driving humans into the sea stuff. But a moment ago he'd been serious about wanting to burn Vizima down. Conclusion: dude's insane.

Also, the money in Vivaldi Bank doesn't belong to the Squirrels just because of their non-humanity if it's Vivaldi himself who says he wouldn't give it to them even if he could. Hence they have no claim. Obviously, it's war, so you're going to seize money anyway, and Vivaldi's has symbolic significance, so I guess this isn't a deal-breaker. But it's still pretty serious.

That said, the noble Siegfried got dangerously close to pretending to parlay just to get close enough for an assault. Bad. Obviously, there's been a bit of a shift and modern ethics of resolving hostage situations allow for that kind of thing at present, but back in middle-ages morality, that's just simply breaking your word, not justified by the other side acting wrongfully in taking hostages. It also looks like Siegfried is acting to save the bank and the money and foil the Squirrels rather than his to priority being to free the hostages. A big disappointment. Hence, I told him to fall back and I negotiated.

It feels un-witcherlike to tell Yaevinn to lay down his arms so he could perhaps save some of his men. It does feel more witcher-like to clear the overgrown insects to allow the Squirrels to flee with the money but without the hostages.

Part of me is inclined to help the Squirrels 'in a witcher sort of way', but that's probably because I've already seen what sort of slaughter of Squirrel troops ensues. Better that than a bloody uprising — which the money would fund, by the way — so I guess I'm being overly elf-friendly at the moment.

Still, I might reload. Hence the question.

[Bedelguese]

No, after the bank your allegiance can only be for who you sided with during the robbery or neither, the one you fought is permanently locked from you on that playthrough.

Siegfried's ethics and moral code change after the swamp skirmish in chapter 2 but depending on who you side with his true personality comes back and shines through.

Same with Yaevinn, realism hits him that his anti-human beliefs and attempting to topple Vizima aren't sustainable and he sees reason as well.

[NewbieOne]

Argh. I suspected the game tries to show you the best sides of whatever faction you actually side with.

[Ragnarök]

The problem with that is that Yaevinn still burns Vizima, regardless of whether you treat him with kid gloves or not. Whatever he had said before that point is irrelevant since that was by far the most heinous act in the game.

As far as my own experience:

Act I: Haren. Sided with the Squirrels because I pitied their circumstance. A mistake I never made again after seeing the result in Act II.

Act II: May have helped here and there, if I was clear on the details. Delivered the letter, but wouldn't have had I pressed Yaevinn more on what he was planning. Oversight on my part.

Act III: Helped Siegfried put down an unlawful uprising against the Crown. No regrets. Completely warranted. Went in alone in the bank, put them down, again in service of the Crown. As you said, it wasn't their money, moreover, the Squirrels were not elected by the Non-Humans to speak or act for them and if justice was ever to be had, the money would need to be returned to its rightful owners, which means it needs to be accounted for and easily located.

During Six Feet Under, the Squirrels revealed their true nature. Saved the humans.

Your idea about medieval morality and ethics is a bit naiive. Like any other time period, much of it was subjective or at minimum selectively applied. The lord dictated the code of conduct of his knights, in this case, the order Siegfried had was to assault the bank. Doing otherwise would be acting dishonorably to his lord.

In the end, I stayed neutral. I didn't want the events of the end of Chapter IV to be used as an Anti-Elf rallying cry if I were to side with the Order, harming those who had nothing to do with the ♥♥♥♥ the Squirrels did there, so I let them slaughter each other to the last man. The Elves deserved what they got there for needlessly using human shields, but so did the Order for going in guns blazing, screwing the negotiations.

[NewbieOne]

Believe it or not, I'm leaning Squirrel camp right now after the experience of Act IV.

Speaking for the Squirrels:

- Toruviel starts non-hostile to the villagers.
- The unit is in bad shape.
- It's also starving and pretty much dying out but not taking food by force, as perfectly doable as that would be.
- When teaching Alvin, Geralt has the opportunity to realize the elves are backed into a corner.
- And that does lead to actions such as hostage taking, which is a far cry from killing them yet.
- Several peasants apparently were killed, though that may well have been due to the elves initially counting on the Order backing down, except the Order didn't care about its own, preferring to finish the Squirrels off at the expense of peasant lives
- If you side with the Squirrels, Toruviel eventually agrees to free the hostages and just flee under the cover of night.
- The Order breaks its word and just comes storming in. Another round of the same crap about not negotiating with terrorists but not being above pretending to.
- The elven side of the story seems to show the Order as wanting to punish the villagers for not acting against the elves previously.
- Neutrality seems to expose the peasants to harm, at least if you decide to flee. That's hardly sustainable in the books' light, I think. The book Geralt would easily have fled a war or a purely military battle, but leaving peasants alone at the mercy of two inimical militaries. Ironically, the Witcher path seems to run counter of Geralt's principle of choosing the lesser evil.
- It also turns out the riots in Vizima were provoked by the Order going after non-human women and children.
- You've got some time to rethink your choice in The Gold Rush and reflect that, perhaps, 'helping you in the Witcher sort of way' was the better thing to do. Like the dialogue said, not pinning a squirrel tail to your hat but just letting them escape by killing monsters, to prevent human & non-human bloodshed. I came to this realization when reading up on Toruviel dialogue available just at the end of the hostage situation if you sided with the elves.
- The Order's soldiers seem mostly to believe the only good elf is a dead elf, even if you're on the Order's side (the game whitewashes the faction you're with and blackens the faction you oppose, to some degree, but this is left in). The Squirrels are bad, but less bad than that.
- Geralt can use the Squirrels to save Temeria and then use Foltest to save Squirrels.


What still speaks against them:

- Unnecessary uprising that's also unwinable, which essentially means unjust war, coupled with most of those guys being unlawful combatants.
- Totally creepy stuff like locking tied women up in a crypt with ghouls.
- A record of attacking civilians, in creepy ways, with unethical weapons.
- A history of lying and using Geralt. Somewhat excusable but making them unreliable and untrustworthy.
- Killing hostages.
- The Order's rank-and-file soldiers' conduct is the responsibility of their commander, who appears, well, quite responsible in the Order leg of the game, just like Toruviel is less anti-human than some of the lowest-ranking elves.

Also can't escape the fact the Squirrels are actually worse in the Order leg of the game once it forks out than in the Squirrel scenario. The nice factors don't exist in-game, it's only metagaming skills applied to probe for some deeper background by tracing back from alternative events.

Curiously, though, there's one thing Geralt can do on the neutral path:

Stay and make sure no villagers are harmed, even if this means having to fight his elven pals from old journeys and his Order pals from the Salamander fights to date. This does sound like a Witcher thing to do. In a way, this seems nobler than leaving either side to be slaughtered by the other. However, this is something you can only do in a meta sort of way, as your declared choice in dialogue is to flee.

[Ragnarök]

The Squirrels were responsible for their own starvation in Act IV. Out of pride, they refused food from the mayor of Murky Waters when he offered it freely. Toruviel's back was not against a wall. She could have disbanded her commando unit, or left much earlier. She chose to bite the hand that would feed her and take hostages instead.

The city was already burning when all of this was going on and there was never an order to negotiate with the Squirrels, so no word was given. White Rayla was eventually relieved of her command because of her refusal to end it in a timely manner when they began threatening the children, who she had a soft spot for. Her contract as a mercenary was terminated by Siegfried via a letter.

Zoltan wasn't an unbiased source for what was happening in Vizima at that point. When you side with the Order he shames you saying something to the effect of "Healthy Non-Humans are being thrown into Old Vizima with Plague-Infected Humans because they're more susceptible to the plague." He acknowledges this as merely a rumor, based on a "fairy tales" if you go Neutral or Scoia'tael, meaning he's lying if you choose the Order path. Doesn't necessarily mean he's lying about the Order killing civilians, however it proves he's willing to lie to you and himself, when it suits his world view.

Personally, I'd buy that the Order was attacking civilians, but that would be after the rebellion started and their blood was hot.

What is known is this: The fighting started and the Non-Human civilians were already armed by the funds stolen from the bank (or from Vivaldi) in preparation for a uprising that Yaevinn already admitted to planning. The real question is, Who attacked first? Probably Yaevinn's commandos, otherwise what would have triggered the Order killing civilians when prior to that the city was at peace and under control? Doesn't make sense.

The Order fanned the flames, but Yaevinn took the bait and in doing so, he willingly sacrificed Toruviel, who he could have relieved if not for his desire for vengeance. Instead of putting food in the mouths of his people, he put weapons in their hands.

[Rattle&Hum]

I did a bit of "research" into this and...

Choose a side out right (during gold rush) and you are locked into a choice/path (either who you sided with or neutral). Go in/start of neutral and you can still choose a side later (or stay neutral).

As for which side is "best" that is up to the individual to decide.

[Bedelguese]

Originally posted by Rattle&Hum:

I did a bit of "research" into this and...

Choose a side out right (during gold rush) and you are locked into a choice/path (either who you sided with or neutral). Go in/start of neutral and you can still choose a side later (or stay neutral).

As for which side is "best" that is up to the individual to decide.

Wrong, there is no "Neutral" in Gold Rush, you either help Siegfried or Yaevinn, if you attempt to side with the faction you fought later they will turn away your help.

[Rattle&Hum]

Originally posted by Blitz:

Wrong, there is no "Neutral" in Gold Rush, you either help Siegfried or Yaevinn, if you attempt to side with the faction you fought later they will turn away your help.

I am not an advocate of mis-information. I stated if you start of neutral (ie let me speak to them from the start) you can still choose freely come chapter IV. If that is not the case then I am happy to take back my previous statement.

As for "Wrong there is no neutral in gold rush", clearly there isn't as the plot requires you to get allies (knights/elves) to progess the main quest line. During this quest alone you can flip flop between sides a few times.

I am of the opinion if you don't choose a side but ultimately are forced to a side (for gold rush) then come chapter IV you are still free to choose a side (or neutral). Like I said better to be wrong that stick to a false belief.

[NewbieOne]

One more question, so as not to start a different thread: How does Siegfried play out differently in Act 5 when you side with the Order?

[ZWXYZ]

Originally posted by NewbieOne:

One more question, so as not to start a different thread: How does Siegfried play out differently in Act 5 when you side with the Order?

He and Rayla are your main allies.

[Bedelguese]

Originally posted by NewbieOne:

One more question, so as not to start a different thread: How does Siegfried play out differently in Act 5 when you side with the Order?

He sees what the Order has become and helps you as his most trusted friend and so he can reform the Order

[Bedelguese]

Originally posted by Rattle&Hum:

Originally posted by Blitz:

Wrong, there is no "Neutral" in Gold Rush, you either help Siegfried or Yaevinn, if you attempt to side with the faction you fought later they will turn away your help.

I am not an advocate of mis-information. I stated if you start of neutral (ie let me speak to them from the start) you can still choose freely come chapter IV. If that is not the case then I am happy to take back my previous statement.

As for "Wrong there is no neutral in gold rush", clearly there isn't as the plot requires you to get allies (knights/elves) to progess the main quest line. During this quest alone you can flip flop between sides a few times.

I am of the opinion if you don't choose a side but ultimately are forced to a side (for gold rush) then come chapter IV you are still free to choose a side (or neutral). Like I said better to be wrong that stick to a false belief.

Advocate of mis-information or not you're still wrong, you're stuck with who you sided with in the bank or neither. You could side with Siegfried and the Order every time before but once you side with Yaevinn (or vice versa) you'd be locked out of whichever side you did not pick, regardless of dialogue flip flopping or ambivalence, the side you did not help will refuse your help in Chapter IV since they don't trust you.

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Gold_Rush

"Please be careful with your choice, since your choice in this quest will have a significant plot impact on Chapter IV's Free Elves quest. Once you have chosen to fight against a particular side in this quest, you can no longer support that side in Chapter IV. You can not change your mind."