Talk:The Assassins of Kings/@comment-27247976-20151119125003/@comment-4711890-20160523080257

anyway, that was a response to Anonymous Coward - but to answer your question:

i have indecision as well, particularly due to the certainty that nobody crafts a game to this extent with a storyline that includes a central choice so inevitably divisive that there is no obvious "right/wrong". in keeping with the 'three paths' loosely available in the first game, my plan is to have a full playthrough of all three games for each of those three attitudes - one entirely pro-human/Temeria, one entirely pro-nonhuman/sorceress-sympathetic, and one striving to stay 'professional' and walk the tightrope of 'neutrality'. the thing about the 'neutral' path is that Assassins of Kings in particular makes it practically impossible:  you can't chose neither Iorveth nor Roche! but there are enough other decisions to cumulatively make it an interesting exercise. i found a thread at CDPR forums that included a chain of decisions that was mainly concerned with a 'strong North', supposedly better able to resist Nilfgaard. i probably won't go for that in any of the playthroughs (the pro-human will be more worried about Temeria than about the other nations) but it's still a vague possibility for the 'neutral' path.

so far i've tested all of Iorveth's path and about half of Roche's. definitely different benefits to each - the main thing with Iorveth's is that one particular sequence in Chapter III *SPOILER ALERT* is the only serious chance the Pontar Valley has of having an independent nonhuman presence.