I guess you're right :) I just blindly assumed he wouldn't be on friendly terms with Geralt unless they were on the same side (even when you side with him, he only says he trusts you when you take over the prison barge and kill half the soldiers :P). Little details like this make me happy, though, it only shows how much attention they paid to a lot of details in the game.

...and good examples of where they weren't thinking at all. The thing with Roche really bugged me, it comes across as incredibly careless writing.

You're right, you can never give Margot's note to Iorveth. Not that it matters, since it's only about Flotsam and you're leaving anyway; it would make more sense if you received it earlier in game (for a hint on Malena, perhaps?), but what can you do :/

Other hole that is kinda small but still is the fact that if you decide not to give Iorveth his sword, but then release him, at the end of the chapter 1 there will be a flashback to when iorveth fights roche.

If iorveth was captured the whole time, and did not encounter Roche before that, then this encounter could not have happened!

What did Iorveth mean when he said there is no more Saskia?

Saskia died? How could the witcher be so important that Geralt alone could turn the tide of the battle against the non humans? Or depending whose side you take that could win the battle for non humans just makes no sense at all.

It was hard to see Iorveth heartbroken and angry because all of his dreams were crushed when all he ever wanted was a place to call HOME.

Hmm, did you play Iorveth's path? I don't want to spoil anything if you didn't :)

Saskia/Upper Aedirn are symbols of freedom for non-humans. I think that's what he meant by 'no more Saskia/Aedirn', that the fight is over (= it's been conquered by Henselt) and he can forget about his dreams of freedom. It's really sad :C

Hmm, im so curious!

Why Iorweth reacts in another way if

a) he wasn't betrayed, trapped and his commando slaughtered (give sword)
b) he was betrayed, trapped and his commando slaughtered (punch the bugger)

Really, what the hell! He should reply the same!

[WARNING! This post will be full of spoilers, especially regarding Iorveth's path of the story.]

After it was clear that Vergen had been taken (Kaedweni soldiers everywhere!), she and Philippa fled to Loc Muinne. I think that's what he's referring to; that she's simply taken off.

There are several events that happen differently, if Geralt isn't in Vergen, that piled together may have led to the city's downfall. First of all, Stennis dies in the fog, meaning there's no poisoning of Saskia. If you recall, if you're in Vergen, at the end of the lynching (or non-lynching) of Stennis, that's when Iorveth decides to venture out to rally more of the Scoia'tael to his cause. He comes to this decision when he sees how unstable Saskia's current forces are - both the peasants and the nobles act irrationally, when there's so much at stake - and he also feels safe to leave Saskia to the care of Geralt. If Geralt isn't there - and the lynching never occurs - he probably wouldn't feel comfortable leaving Saskia's side, nor would he come to the conclusion that he needs to rally more elves to join the battle. If you recall, Saskia only wins the battle when Iorveth and a hundred or so more elven archers arrive in the nick of time to turn the tide.

There are more things that may or may not have contributed to a successful defence of Vergen, by Geralt following Iorveth instead of Roche, but I believe the elven reinforcements towards the end of the battle, to be the main reason. Then you're free to speculate how Geralt's (and friends') presence may change things (Stennis dying so quickly must have been a really hard blow against the nobles). Heck, even such a small thing as Dandelion singing his uplifting ballad may have played a part for morale. ;)


I think it has a lot to do with pride, the manner in which he speaks to Geralt when you save him during the battle. If Geralt didn't betray him in the ruins by punching him on the throat, and if Iorveth wasn't defeating in a duel with Roche, he might be more honest and upfront with his feelings; i.e. he's not afraid to admit to Geralt that he feels that his cause has been lost (you can really hear the pain in his voice). If Geralt on the other hand betrayed him, and Roche beat him in a duel, he will feel incredibly weakened - his pride severely wounded - in which case he will put on a façade of strength and determination, an air of false confidence, simply to not show his weakness to Geralt. If Geralt never betrayed him, and if he managed to best Roche in a duel, he might feel more comfortable being completely honest with Geralt when they meet during the battle. He outright admits that he himself believes that everything is lost. At least, that's my theory, and I think it's a great attention to detail the writers put into this relationship - how it varies, even if you didn't choose their path for Chapter 2.

Rhymes.

It's clear to me now, but the first time around I was really confused because I didn't even think of the Act 1 events :) I just assumed he hates your guts unless you side with him. Respect for CDPR's attention to detail and characterisation went up +1000, haha.

Kindo, I wish I could hug all your posts. :D

Yeah, it's crazy. I didn't even think about it until I saw this thread, and then tried it myself.

Hehe... thank you. We could always request the post ratings system to change to 'hug this post' and 'slap this post.' ;)

How come I didnt meet Iorveth at all after Ch 1 in my first playthrough (Roche's patch)? Is it also a matter of Roche winning/losing the duel (he won or something else?).

You can only meet him once, briefly (this where the conversation we're discussing happens). During the Vergen battle, Zoltan tells you Iorveth is holed up in the meeting room. Saving him is optional, so if you went straight to Philippa's house, you missed your chance to see him.

Yes i played the Iorveths path 3 times i was just wondering that when i saw it on YouTube that video where he said that there is no more Saskia but thank you really for helping me get that part i didn't quite first get that. ( i'm bit slow today and all:-D)

Ps! I can not wait for Witcher 3 i loved the first game and i love the second one even more i think this 2nd is more detailed than the first one.

Yes i think so too so it is like a if i cast a stone in to a pond i can see the ripples in the water and every ripple is one event in time.

Philippa did admit that if the Witcher hadn't gathered the ingredients for the potion she would of thought of something else.

Was it that if you do not take Iorveths path you can not save Saskia?

I can not remember since i played the Roches path only once (too much politics)

What comes to Saskias and Iorveths romance i do not think it is there really.

To Iorveth i think Saskia is just some one who would restore hope for the non humans some one who would give them a home. Because when they leave from Vergen he looks back one more time kind of like saying i'll miss this place (could be my imagination too).

If they would of been romantically involved wouldn't of he asked about Saskia right of the bat when Geralt saved Saskia (what Iorveth did not know at the time) and even before that when she fell to the floor in the meeting but than again he is not the sort of person who shows his emotions easily.

Just wanted give my opinion about that nothing more nothing less. One things for sure the characters are very well written as is the story it self.