Talk:Triss Merigold/@comment-88.5.17.226-20180708082142/@comment-83.59.238.135-20181006114215

''Well a lot of people already wrote down why you are wrong. Why should I? Its pointless because you dont give a a damn.''

''@Felixgotrek, I have to agree, I'm one of those who replied to this guy some time ago, looks like some just want to force their subjective opinions on everyone else no matter what. That's why I only comment every once in a while, knowing from experience that it only goes back and forth pointlessly. But this quote from another comment by the OP:''

First of all, you and everybody else are the only ones who honestly don’t give a damn. I’ve always taken into consideration everything in people said when answering my comments. That’s clearly visible in my replies, so you can’t accuse me of that.

Secondly, that Triss hasn't done anything wrong is also a subjective opinion (by the way, that's a very redundant way of putting it) that you're trying to establish as the truth or at least the most likely possibility. If you're going to accuse me of something, at least don’t accuse me of something that you're doing yourself. That reeks of hypocrisy, and if there's anything in this world that I really hate, that's hypocrisy.

''should've kind of ended the debate, when even the original accuser admits there's not enough evidence in the books to support the accusation. How someone subjectively views a character in non-canon sequels shouldn't be relevant to book content. At most the games could retcon a way of interpreting the book event in their own context, but in fact it isn't even mentioned. Chances are because the writers didn't consider it important to the story.''

And when did I say we were just talking about the books? Maybe I didn't make my position clear from the beginning, and I'm sorry, mea culpa, etc. But I think the position from which I was arguing from is pretty clear to anyone who bothers to read what I've written. By the way, you're doing it again. Who are you to state absolutely what you can or can't do in a debate? If I want to examine Triss as composite-character between her in the books and her in the games, I have every right to do so, and no one can tell me «that’s not allowed» no matter how much you want to think otherwise.

''Again, I see nothing that proves it was different than something like the quest with Keira Metz, and it happened at a time when Geralt was temporarily broken up with Yennefer, he did sleep with other women (including a 17 years old Shani) as well under such circumstances, even if he regretted it later. So, I'm not convinced at all he needed any sort of mind control.''

Just because Triss wouldn’t have needed some kind of mind control doesn't mean she didn't use it. But this paragraph doesn't even bother to deal with the central point of my argument, so I really don't know why I'm bothering to keep responding to these comments, when you all only ignore what I say or deliberately misinterpret it in order to attack with the same arguments as always. Anyway. I will repeat myself again, and I hope that this time you will pay attention. In the hope that something will change, I will do it in simpler terms. Triss and Geralt + magic does not necessarily = rape. But  it is suspicious, considering that Triss takes advantage of his amnesia, as she admits in the third game, showing an astonishing lack of scruples. And that Triss is desperate. The same woman who tries to seduce Geralt in front of Ciri while the two are washing her when she is sick.

''Just a reminder re Lambert, he isn't in Vizima during the events of TW1. He says so clearly in the prologue, he agrees to search for Salamandra in Kaedwen, and isn't seen again in the game. Either that, or he lied to all the other witchers. ''

I want to remind you that I have already considered this. You don't care that I already have, but I feel the need to remind you anyway. Lambert says that. But TW3 suggests that Lambert has slept with a woman important to Geralt. The only possible candidate, considering all the facts, is Triss. You're all arguing from the position that "TW1 is a game full of problems because of the company's lack of experience and a limited budget", so I don't know why the canon established in that problematic game takes precedence for you over the canon of the last of the games and the best developed one. It's completely illogical. As I see it, TW3 takes precedence. Adjusting TW1 to fit with it, the only possibility I see is that Lambert slept with Triss during that time. If you see any other possibility and are able to argue for it in an intelligent and logical way, you are free to do so. I would even be pleased.

''Regarding Triss admitting to having taken advantage of Geralt in TW3, I don't see this as clear proof of bad intentions in the time frame of TW1. One can feel guilty about past actions in hindsight in light of new knowledge (such as learning that Yennefer's alive, which happens only after the ending of TW2), even if they originally didn't seem wrong at the time. I do think it would've been better to tell him about his past sooner, it's just not black and white why she didn't.''

Again with the fallacies. Just because she didn't have bad intentions doesn't mean that her actions aren't bad. I can kill a person while firmly believing that they deserve to die, but I still killed a person. That cannot be changed. You understand that, don't you? If you don't see it that way, please explain to me in more detail how you think. Regardless of what you may think of me, my only intention is to have a reasonable and intelligent debate about this. Another thing. If Triss feels guilty after hearing about Yennefer is alive… doesn't matter at all. That doesn't change the fact that she took advantage of Geralt, and even if Yen had been dead, that certainly couldn’t be used to justify her actions.

''I still maintain that the idea of Triss impersonating Yennefer in TW1 by reusing her lines is nonsensical, it doesn't explain either why she also says book lines from other Lodge members, nor why Alvin similarly "impersonates" Ciri at times. As far as I know, it's just a byproduct of an admittedly not well executed idea by CDPR to use other characters in place of Ciri and Yennefer when they didn't feel confident yet that they could portray them well enough in a game with their limited resources and experience. But come the prologue of TW2, this oddity is gone, and Triss is back to her self from the books already before Geralt learns about his past. A change that wouldn't make sense if the impostor theory was true, but if we assume it was bad writing in TW1, well, CDPR did what they could by fixing it in the next game and pretending it didn't happen.''

Well, I have already addressed this issue in this very comment. I only include this quote here so that the commentary is more complete and so that you don't accuse me of conveniently skipping a part of your argument, even though I haven't done such a thing.

''On the topic of magic, I don't think the average sorceress has such powerful mind reading and controlling abilities as suggested above, and Triss is relatively young (by sorceress standards) and inexperienced. Someone (especially a witcher) controlled by a spell would normally find out about it afterwards one way or the other, and reading memories of conversations from years before out of an amnesiac man's mind is also something I think would be very difficult.''

You have no right to say such things and try to pass them off as indisputable facts. How was Geralt going to find out if their encounter and the ex-took place in private? Explain it to me, or that part of your argument has no power. I imagine you will try to defend yourself by saying that I can't be sure of that, since we don't know the details of that brief affair. But that truth also invalidates what you are trying to affirm. When someone suffers amnesia, the memories don't have to dissapear. In many cases, they are simply inaccessible. Since Geralt recovers his memories completely at some point between TW2 and TW3, it can be said that his memories were simply inaccessible to him, and that Triss could have taken a look through them with the help of magic. Even if it wasn't like that, Triss could have read his mind when they had sex for the first time or any time he was around her, not necessarily after his post-resurrection amnesia. As for what you think about the difficulty of that procedure, it's irrelevant. We don't know if it's difficult or easy, but the ease and naturalness with which Yennefer reads Geralt's thoughts clearly suggests that what I’ve proposed can't be that difficult for Triss. In other words, it's a possibility you can't deny no matter how much you don't like it. And the most likely one, given what we know about Triss's feelings and her personality.

''This is an important point of difference, when playing, I try to think and judge in the context of the fictional world, from the POV of the characters, because it's an RPG where we're playing as Geralt of Rivia. And in TW3, he loves or at least likes both sorceresses (choice dependent, but he can't hate them, no matter your choices), he doesn't particularly care about what wrong they did or didn't do years before, and in the end is shown happy with either in the epilogue and later in Blood and Wine. Of course, there are subtleties to these relationships, they aren't perfect, but characters do try to move on from the past, learn from their mistakes, which is a theme also seen in other parts of the game and expansions.''

First of all, what Geralt feels about certain events or people is completely irrelevant. It doesn't change the truth that can be observed from the point of view of an outside observer, which is, after all, the only thing that matters in an argument between outside observers like us. Secondly, he does care about the wrong things they did years ago. As Geralt, you can reject Triss because of how she took advantage of him. He doesn't say it directly, but, for example, while talking to Dijkstra in front of her you can flatly, and with perhaps some contempt, deny that you're in a relationship. And yet you say he doesn't care about it no matter what choices you make?

Stop throwing fallacies and outright falsehoods at me, please, I beg of you. My head is going to start hurting.