Does the Order kill civilians? [SPOILERS]

[ihKu47]

If you decide to help the Order in Murky Waters, Zoltan claims that the Order is killing nonhuman civilians and trying to kill them by infecting them with the plague. However, as I recall, in the Order playthrough it's never seen or mentioned after that, nor do you see or hear of it before that. What do you guys think?

I know that in the Order ending the nonhumans get exiled en masse, and while collective punishments are unjust, Zoltan also mentions that practically all of them joined arms with the Squirrels so the exodus might be considered for those who joined in the revolt.

[ihKu47]

Well, I decided to go back a bit and choose the Neutral path as I didn't like some other stuff with the Order path either, mainly the changes in Geralt's dialogue. Interestingly enough, this time Zoltan again says that the Order has been killing nonhuman civilians BUT treats the accusations of trying to kill them with the plague as nonsensical rumor. While the civilian killing might suit the Grandmaster's plans of polarizing the situation to justify eliminating all nonhumans, I think the Squirrels would also benefit from the mere rumors of the act.

I do wonder what's actually going on and who has the clearest picture of the situation.

[Ragnarök]

You hear about a lot of horrible stuff The Order supposedly does in game but rarely does the game actually show you any of it. IMO, that and the Squirrels being portrayed in such an unsympathetic light are major flaws. The books did a better job showing what the Scoia'tael are really about while simultaneously showing their flawed ideals. They were neither entirely good nor entirely evil and actually about as racist as The Order. Their policy on humans was "Drive them into the Sea!"

As it stands in game, there is no reason to support the Scoia'tael unless you're some kind of romantic who's able to turn a blind eye to all the horrible ♥♥♥♥ they do for the sake of "equality". That stuff is actually portrayed. I mean, how do you reconcile lighting an entire city on fire? A city that is home to your own people? As least there are some merits to The Order. Some of them aren't jerks and they kill monsters for free which benefits everyone, regardless of race.

I think that Zoltan as a moderate was pushed to one side when things went to hell in Vizima and average humans were pushed to the other. No one was without their own bias, and being more privy to the Scoia'tael's rhetoric than the average person, some of it was bound to affect him subconciously, and I suspect Zoltan was only seeing what he wanted to see or what he was capable of seeing at that point.

You hit the nail on the head with your second analysis. The Grandmaster knew that he was winning the war and that Murky Waters and Vizima would serve as false flags against all non-humans, which in the end would forward the survival of the human race at the cost of non-human extinction. Yaevinn was playing right into his hands by providing more Elven bodies for the pyre. Knowing this, I too went neutral in the end.

[ihKu47]

Thanks for the comment! I had similar ideas put you managed to put them in a much more elaborate from. Too bad Geralt doesn't seem to be able to make a stand for one side without also expressing support for their ideals in his dialogue, I could see how he might want to protect Vizima from attackers that have no qualms murdering civilians and still standing up for nonhumans in general.

[Ragnarök]

I think he does to a point, though I'd like to hear the lines you're referring to if you can remember because it has been a long while since I played the game last.

The line that stuck out to me the most was one of the options when he speaks to Alvin about why Toruviel took the village hostage. Something along the lines of "Once you strip them of their lofty veneer and flowery speeches, you reveal what they really are." and frankly, he's not wrong if it's pertaining specifically to the Squirrels. That's what some players have trouble with I think, differentiating between the two entities. The Scoia'tael do not speak for all non-humans. They do not represent all non-humans. Just because you hate the Squirrels as a character, doesn't mean the character hates all non-humans.

When Geralt sides with the Order, he sides with Sigfried, who is mortified at what the Grandmaster is trying to do when he realises that Jacques is not doing what he's doing to reinstate order but instead trying stage a coup d'etat against Foltest while he was on campaign. When he tells Foltest of this, the king strips Jacques of the title of Grandmaster and gives it to Sigfried.

For me, the real problem arises if Geralt sides with Yaevinn, the guy who burned the city in the first place. I just don't see how anyone could overlook that.

I really wish that the Squirrels were on more even footing with the Order in justification like it was in the novels, though I still give the game mad praise for actually being capable of addressing just how complicated morality is and how not everything is in black and white, even in regards to bigotry. Even if it was unintentional, I feel CDPR giving a slight edge to the Order was very ballsy when a lesser game would put the "Braveheart" Elves on a shining pedastal as champions of equality. The game even attempts to dupe you into believing that, but if you look closer, you find that's not the case.

[ihKu47]

Agreed again! The line Geralt says to Alvin is actually optional though, as you said, quite on point. I however chose to describe the Squirrels in a more positive light, wanting something ideal but feeling being pushed up against a wall by humans and seeing violence as the only way out. That choice was mainly for Toruviel's views, she seems to genuinely have this viewpoint in the cave while majority of the elven fighters are not shy at admitting they detest all d'hoine.

I noticed I still had the autosave just before that conversation: When Foltest asks "Wouldn't you be angered? Wouldn't you opt to shed more blood?" Geralt answers "Absolutely sire, the nonhumans must pay. With your backing, the Order..." before being cut off. It just didn't sound like something Geralt would say, not as the Geralt I'm playing anyway. Though he might stand against the Squirrels to defend the city's citizens from aggression he'd not be one for much proactive bloodshedding (I decided not to judge Berengaar's actions either).

[Ragnarök]

Oh, I'm aware the line was optional, I just assumed in that instance it was the one you chose (since that particular answer leans most toward the Order) since you went Order initially. Geralt actually said the same thing to Toruviel in the books, more out of disappointment than anger though.

I'm of two minds about Toruviel. On the one hand, she was being hunted by the Order and had her back up against the wall, on the other hand she took an entire village hostage who had previously offered to share their bounty with the starving Squirrels and she rejected out of pride. If she had taken the offer, she probably could have disarmed and integrated her commando unit back into society since Murky Waters was pretty mellow toward her kind. Then there would have been no massacre because the Elves would then be regular citizens again, not rebels. So...

Yeah, there are some lines that are badly worded imo. If he had said, "The Squirrels must pay." then I wouldn't mind so much and I genuinely wonder if this wasn't a case of the game being mistranslated from Polish to English, or rather mixing up the two terms, like one term having two meanings in Polish, but only one in English, or some such.

[ihKu47]

Yeah, Toruviel did loose a lot of decent-person-points in that whole hostage situation. Even if she was intent on "fighting for her people" there was really no cause to take the innocent humans who had even offered them help for hostage. From her lines I gathered she had even ordered some of them killed to show the Squirrels were serious, but it didn't deter Rayla so she took the children hostage as well (though later claiming they don't kill children). If honour and "liberty or death" really were their attitudes, they could have just made a tactical retreat somewhere else and if some of their own people were too weak to go on.. well, I guess that's where the liberty or death part of their convictions comes in, at least rather than holding complete bystanders hostage.

Though now that I think about it, maybe the whole broken bridge near the village was there to signify that there was really no way out of the general area. Still, the Squirrels are elven fighters: They can likely traverse pretty well even without roads (and lose the heavily armored Order in the process) or just steal a plank or two from the village on their way to the bridge.

You could be right about the mistranslation, or maybe there was going to be more context for the line that makes it clearer that Geralt is referring to attacking nonhumans. A shame really, I would sort of like to fight alongside Siegfried an have him revise the Order, but since the decisions apparently have little impact for Witcher 2 I don't mind that much. Plus the way I had been playing this time was really leaning towards neutrality, even if I did sort of regret leaving the villagers in Murky Waters to their fate.