Talk:Triss Merigold/@comment-88.5.17.226-20180708082142/@comment-88.5.11.173-20180709110815

I think you and I have very different definitions of seduction. Keira is not even subtle. She pretty muchundefinedsays: come, let's fuck. I would not call that seduction. Change her clothes to some more elegant and beautiful could have done by buying them, or changing previously to Geralts visit, if she had similar clothes. And she could have bought horses instead of transforming the mice.

''“That's akin to saying that because drugging people and having sex with them is considered rape, it can be rape to use perfume to be more attractive, since it's also seduction with the help of a chemical substance. After all, the method or the extent of the effect don't matter, right?”''

Okay, that's intentionally misinterpreting my arguments. Don’t be ridiculous. If I thought that way, I would say that Yennefer, Triss and Coral raped him because their looks are products of magic, not something natural.

No, if I think that phrase is an indication that she raped him, it's because of Geralts personality in the books. Unlike the games, he does not fuck any woman who gets in front of him. I have a hard time believing that Triss managed to take him to bed with just something like what Kiera did. It is not remotely credible to me, in fact. For the Geralt of the games, it would have been enough for her to spread her legs, but the one in the books has a bit more self-control.

''Circular logic. You ignore the possibilty that nothing was actually done to Geralt that he wouldn't forgive.''

It is possible, sure. But not very likely.

Actually, it does, since it helps explaining why no one considers it important at the time to tell Geralt about his family from the past - they've been gone for years, and no one heard anything about them since then.

Come on man. I meant it's not important that someone should have imagined that Yennefer was alive, too. I was saying you were right about that, at least, so pay attention to my words, please. We will not get anywhere if you even attack my concessions. 

''If that's a valid reason for someone like Dandelion, then it can also be just as valid for Triss. That she starts a relationship with him (with his consent) before he recovers his memories, that's another matter, but if we consider that "abusive", then so it is for Shani.''

The problem is not the initial reasoning, as I said ... once again, please pay attention to what I said. It is unpleasant to write about a thousand words with such care and consideration so that later you ignore what you want.

Anyway. The problem is that what Triss does after that. As she admits in TW3, she took advantage of Geralt's amnesia. That's something that she herself, the one who did it, says. Why do you consider Geralt's word to be more valid than Triss's on that subject?

And analyzing events based on the truth established by herself, her behavior in TW1 is quite sinister.

''You conveniently ignore that she uses lines she never heard, so either she has superhuman powers, or it's in fact just bad writing by CDPR. Besides, the reused lines aren't even only from Yennefer.''

I did not conveniently ignore it, I just did not think I'd have to explain that Triss is, you know, a sorceress and could have read his mind at any time, rummaging through his memories. Considering the fascination Triss showed for the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer in the books, that is something I would take for granted even in an alternate universe in which CDPR had never produced the games. 

“She tells him as soon as he actually asks.”

''“If you make an accusation against a person, real or fictional, the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove the alleged rape, abuse, and whatever else you may come up with. "Innocent until proven guilty." As long as there are alternate explanations to the situations being discussed that are plausible, the accusations are just speculation, not facts. And TW1 being CDPR's first game isn't just some random excuse, there were real issues with the development that explain some of their decisions, but that'd be its own topic.”''

Yes, she tells it to him as soon as she can no longer postpone it conveniently without looking bad in Geralt's eyes.

There is more than one possible interpretation or explanation, but some are clearly more valid than others. For example, I could theorize that Geralt is not Visenna's son because sorceresses should not be able to have children, but there is nothing in the saga that supports that theory in the least. It was clearly supposed to be a miracle, nothing more. On the other hand, as for the survival of Geralt in the Lady of the Lake, no one can tell me that I am wrong or not, whatever my interpretation may be.

There were problems with the development of the game, yes, but ... uff. I will quote myself in hopes that this time you deign to address my argument: «That if they needed to sacrifice some things to save money, they would sacrifice such an important part of the plot, of the game itself, instead of skimping on other less important parts? »

''She tried to do it on some guy at a party, but was interrupted by Geralt. Anyway, I'm not comparing anyone, I merely wanted to point it out that the use of magic in various ways (which can be different in each case, see the Keira example) when trying to seduce someone is not unusual among sorceresses, it's not necessarily the kind of horrible act in the Witcher universe as you seem to imply.''

No, I'm sorry, I'm the first one to admit Yennefer's mistakes, that she is far from perfect. But no.

1) Are you going to tell me that a woman like Yennefer would need to use magic to fuck a man in a night of drinking and sex and debauchery? Yes, in the books she has certain physical defects that help Geralt realize that, before being a sorceress, Yennefer was a hunchback. But they are not so many or so serious as to tarnish her beauty.

2) You interpret it that scene like so: that blonde man was coming out of a magical trance. The guy was not in full possession of his faculties, yes, but not for that reason. If he backed away, staggering, confused and nervous it was for three reasons: He was very drunk, he didn’t know about the relationship that bound Geralt and Yennefer, or why that terrifying mutant was looking at him as if he wanted to kill him. Any other interpretation is ridiculous.

By the way, even though we are now discussing Yennefer and I would like to continue to discussing this and the other points, if you want, because you seem a reasonable and intelligent person, I want to make it clear that this was never my intention. This is not a war between waifus. I never said that Yennefer was the right decision or anything like that. Only that before putting Geralt with Triss, it would be much better not to choose between any of the two, if you don’t like Yennefer for some reason.

''Oh, now it's more than once. Wonder how you arrived at that conclusion?''

He never says he had sex with ''Triss, so I don't know what I'm supposed to be ignoring. What you have listed as clues may or may not mean something, they aren't hard evidence. In fact, it was said by Marcin Momot on Reddit that this particular topic is something they left open to interpretation. In other words, saying that they didn't have sex is valid as much as saying that they did. And I still fail to see why starting a relationship with Lambert before the events of TW1 and ending it before committing to Geralt later would make her a horrible person.''

[…]

''Pretty weak evidence, Lambert doesn't know much about Geralt's relationships in TW1 at the time, I wouldn't read too much into his words. That is, if the friend he's talking about is even Geralt in the first place, and if he's not just trolling, being the prick he is. The fact is he agrees to search for Salamandra in Kaedwen at the end of the prologue, and is never seen or mentioned in Vizima.''

{…}

''If you say so. He can't commit to a relationship with Triss until after you decide who to give Alvin to, though (and the player can still choose Shani until the end of TW1), and that's later than when the alleged Lambert footsteps appear. So, by the same logic, it wouldn't count either.''

 ​​​

Yes, it’s open to interpretation because nothing and no one has confirmed it beyond doubt, but as I said above, there are interpretations more valid than others. I cannot think of anything else that he could have been referring. I understand that the subject of our debate is not very clear, but I think that the most valid conclusion from the information we have, until somebody confirms it.

Lambert has to be talking about Geralt. As I said, he looks at him and not very subtly. I don’t think he's trolling. Getting drunk made him more sincere and more open than usual. Leaving aside that Lambert is not a prick, it makes no sense that the story he told was yet another product of his cynicism and bitterness, which manifests in a twisted sense of humor.

When does Geralt cheat on Yennefer? It is not good to avoid answering. If you are not willing to address the opponent's arguments, then debating does not make any sense.

First you tell me that the first game had production problems and that I should be aware of that, you give me links to Reddit threads in which inconsistencies between the games are mentioned, and now you want to support your argument with evidence that is only in that very same game when mine goes beyond that.

Whatever happened TW1, TW3 wanted to suggest that Lambert had done it with Triss. There are too many clues that indicate it. And the points make a clear line.

Triss and Geralt consolidate their relationship after Lamberts footsteps can be seen ,sure, but he said that he didn’t want to hurt his friend. If it happened like you said it did, his words wouldn’t make any sense.

''I did not call you a sad person. Do not twist my words.''

Maybe it's because English is not my first language, but I thought that by calling the reasons you thought I had sad, you also wanted to imply something about me. If I was wrong and I have offended you, I give you my most sincere apologies.

''I did not suggest anything about how much it was or was not serious. Nevertheless, I do not see how it would be less serious than the Lambert thing, even if it was true in the first place.''

Yes, you didn’t say how much it was or wasn’t serious. So what­ of it? Anyway, is less serious because, at that time, neither Yennefer nor Geralt pretended their relationship was a stable, clear one. Geralt had his hopes, but also a lot of doubts about it. He fully understood what their relationship was like at that time.