how would geralt act according to the books?

[Noob Van Noob]

trying more or less to play a lore accurate geralt but havent actually read the books (plan to eventually). any guidelines?

edit: just realized i posted this in the witcher 1 forums, which is fine since i got the answer i wanted but i meant to post this in the witcher 3 forum :P

[Ragnarök]

Protect your friends. Protect other people's lives not their interests. Don't be a hopeless romantic in regards to philosophies and ideals. Judge people based on who they are, not where their allegiances lie. Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.

[Noob Van Noob]

thanks

[tiberiansun371alexw]

Originally posted by Ragnarök:

Protect your friends. Protect other people's lives not their interests. Don't be a hopeless romantic in regards to philosophies and ideals. Judge people based on who they are, not where their allegiances lie. Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do.

I don't think you really need that justricication to play a lore Geralt since game Geralt has amnesia and Triss explicitly told him not to blindly follow his own past (different) self. So lore Geralt and game Geralt can easily be the same person. Even by the time he got a majority (all?) of his memories back, in the offline world, regaining memories lost by retrograde amnesia generally does not result in a reversion of personality if the amnesic one is different from the original. Admitily, retrograde amnesia is rare, regainng memories after amnesia is rare, and different personalities is suprising rare even though experiences is what created them int he frist place.

But I would agree with Ragnarok that Geralt protects his firends and allies as much as possible. He is fairly pragmenatic as opposed to a romantic idealist. Geralt is to an extent greedy, but hardship discouts for monster comissions is in character. He won't feed a human to a monster even a crimminal unless under excruciating circumstances. For example, in the original short story The Witcher, he feeds the guy responsible for Adda the White's curse to the stiga so he can find the damn tihng without getting surpised. had the stiga been in his eyesight friom the start, I suspect the jerk Ostrid would be spared from the monster and given to the local Temeraian garision, which would have been a death sentance too. Who these people are tends to be more important that allegiences. For instance, while he might sympathize with victims of racism, he would never tolerate terrorist tactics and would not approve of the Scoi'tel. For example in the game The Witcher, his old personality would not give arms to the them in chapter 1 or side with them in the bank in chapter... 3 or 4? While his resentment of the Order for being unfair competition with witchers in the monster slaying area is in character, I think he would ahve accepted Sigfried's helt to kill the cockatrice once it became clear the knight was offering free help and not condition help, ie I'll help you but I really want that monster part you wnt too.
Another thing is that lore Geralt knows there is a ton of injustrice in the world and you cna't stop it all. Inaction when help can be given is not the same as putting somone in trouble. Sometimes Geralt will watch a less than innocent person who didn't deserve to die die without lifting a finger even if the enemy of that person didn't greace his hands with orens.
I read three of the short stories, including the one he lifte Adda's curse. Therefore I do not have a complete picture of Geralt. But this is what I gathered from what I read.

Oh in The Witcher 3, a Temerian bandit tried to smugggled supplies for his grou and hires Geraltp. Geralt would never approve of these tactics even though he appretiates the cause (For Temeria!). I personally beleive after finding out he was helping someone who fell as low as the squirils has a 75% chance of siezing the contraband for himself and letting the guy off with a warning and a 25% chance of truning him in to the local law enfrocement, who is under the conquered Nifgaurdians (he whos acts like a bandit hangs like one)... actually there is probably a good chacne he wouldn't even look at the thing since his customer didn't act too suspicious for someone in a war torn region being nervous about looting. There is a good chance he wouldn't look at it and deliver it safely. Geralt would then walk away wishing he had more of these jobs, high paying with no hassles with humans.

[Ragnarök]

The problem with Triss's advice is that it's biased. She doesn't actually want Geralt becoming the same person he was because that means he would go back to loving Yennefer. I'd somewhat argue that this is exactly what the player should be trying to do. To become what they are, not what someone else wants them to be. He may listen to her partially, but witnessing the whole conversation with the woman in the mirror means he knows that she's obfuscating the truth to some degree.

Personally, I thought the events of this game were specifically a test orchestrated by The Wild Hunt to convince Geralt that destiny does exist as he started becoming the person he was destined to be again. If he fights against the Wild Hunt, he becomes who he always was, if he gives the Hunt what it wants he becomes an agent of destiny. Either way, it forwards the notion/deception that destiny does exist, causing Geralt to further doubt his own influence on events in the world.

[Noob Van Noob]

Originally posted by tiberiansun371alexw:

(huge post)

out of curiosity, in your opinion would geralt have sided with Iorveth or Roche during Act 1 of the Witcher 2?

[tiberiansun371alexw]

Technically, while often called the Roche vs Ioveth paths, it is actually Roche or Scoi'tel since in a higlhy unlikley series of events, before Act I ends Ioveth could be dead or in the dungon you start the game in!

There are two related deicions, to punch Ioveth or give him his sword and which path to take. As I mentioned, geurilla warfare is not going to appeal to Geralt even if the cause is noble, and in the case of Scoi'tel the elves want to restore thier supremacy so probably not, Ioveth has also done much to antagonize Geralt while Roche was the one who beleived in him and snuck him the keys. At this momment, Geralt doesn't have a lot of time to calculate, so lore Geralt would have punched him.

Later there comes the path decision. I think it is At the Crossroads: Vernon Roche, where failing or succeding determines what Act II contains. By this time Geralt has had some time to think. He needs to clear his name, get some orens, find Triss, and ensure the stability of Temeria. It seems that clearing his name and the future of Temeria are linked, in both cases he neds to track down the kingslayer. After all, 7/8 of the nobles will accept a bastard child, even Count Marval will aknoledge him/her if the hier doesn't suspiciously get assasinated. Actually, he's quite wrong on this and the stability of Temaria relies on securing Aniais La Valette not Foltest's killer, but he doesn't know that yet and both La Valettes are spposed to b safe. Roche and the Blue Stripes are better at gathering intelligence from scratch, but the Scoi'tel actually harboured Foltest's killer and aren't starting from sratch. In fact, they are taking a break from terrorism Act II and have joined with dwafs plus the local rural populaton to defend the county from Hensalt.

With his reputation and so much more at stake, Geralt would join whichever group will give him the highest chance of finding Foltest's killer. He would even join the Scoi'tel for a duration if it would mean finding him, after all they arn't asking him to be a terrorist, just run some errands and slay some monsters. So I think at this point, the player can chose either knowing Geralt from the books could have came to that decision. He would have 100% spared prince Stennis, but as for Hensalt... I think it could have gone either way.